axman

(Specifying declarer to be south), given the supplied facts: South's exposed card, being the first card played (definition of OL) to the first trick, is an OLOOT. The OL having been made, dummy is spread (L41C). L54 is irrelevant as N did not lead face down. W may accept the OLOOT by playing to the trick, and it is treated as in turn (L53A). or, W may decline to accept, and the lead reverts to W** (L53A) and South's card may be withdrawn (47B). ** if south declines to withdraw his card it remains a lead, defining the suit of the trick.

When rules are constructed well, they provide a balanced inducement to adhere to them. I will offer some analysis. The instant of exposure of dummy's card has both created dummy, and, Dummy has participated in the play by selecting the penalty to the opponent's infraction. Such participation breaches 43A, even though it falls within the remedies otherwise available to declarer; yet, it suggests a search for an answer to the question, 'is it right, as in, is it a wise rule to not penalize the dummy?' If the rule is conceived well, it balances the harm considering the future permutations. For instance, the infraction could be a strategic mistake of which the NOS might take advantage. And, say dummy interferes thereby sending the advantage to the dust bin, what administrator ought to interfere with the NOS's wisdom? And then there is the other side, namely, when dummy's behavior has the fortuitous happenstance of choosing the remedy that a. declarer would not have taken and b. gains a high score. Is that score unfair? Considering that the OS broke the rules and caused the situation, is it so wrong that they achieve the worst of it... by that route?

I believe that the standard to be applied when DE exists, is first... that there is no rectification that is scored normally. In other words, DE does not automatically go to treating both sides as non offending without first contemplation of applying the law.

I would expect that the concept of CC is flawed but not because (for instance)1NT - Pass - 1H, which has no meaning. As, mathematically, it is not necessary for there to be a CC for every auction. Supposedly, when a CC happens to exist there is a way that avoids penalizing.

We have discovered an old American past time called Catch22. Dummy sees X play two cards of different suits to a trick, the second card being the suit of the trick. By playing the second card X has drawn attention to his revoke which opens the door for Dummy to summon the TD about the revoke. However, by summoning the TD Dummy is first to draw attention to X's additional irregularity of playing two cards to the trick- something he may not do. And not being allowed to do the one, he is neither allowed to pursue the other. So, he may do neither- at this time.

On the facts presented, there is no basis for lead penalties. that is TD error. The TD call breached 43A1a,c and therefore dummy's score should be reduced, hopefully encouraging the players 'to not repeat dummy's transgression' in the future.

I would not term this consequence as unintended, it was known prior to adoption.

On the facts, I would require that the call stand on the basis that it was not corrected without pause for thought. In this case the partner made an improper communication which should be penalized. It was the processing of the communication where the player discovered his 'error'. This is pause for thought, however short the duration was, which disqualifies whatever inadvertence that existed. As an additional point, the assertion that the bidding cards stuck together has a bad taste. To wit: just what bidding cards were stuck together such that the 4D call was hidden? This additionally suggests that there was pause for thought- as the story, being false, necessarily takes thought to create- in other words, a pause for thought.

Well, he did not wait for the bidding cards to come into view, or did he? Let's see about that. He picked up his cards. In my book, he created- and is solely responsible for his own misunderstanding that arose.

South and west had a responsibility to themselves to actually see the bidding cards. Thus, their failure to pull the tray completely was what created their misunderstanding. That they proceeded to play tricks in that state ought not relieve them of the consequences. The contract was doubled and ought to be scored as such. The benefit of doing so is that these players will be careful forever; and so will the hundreds of players that hear the story.

Bud, imo the lawmakers are out to lunch. BOOT is a form of fortune telling- at least it ought to be. He has taken his turn so he ought to be required to keep it, albeit when it finally becomes his turn. Then it merely is the matter of judging whether the infracting call is appreciably different from the repetition of the infracting call that determines whether the pard is subject to enforced pass. To put it differently- why should a lawbreaker get more turns than the opponents? This way there is some chance that the turns of each side have some balance.

The principle of appearances suggests that after players return their bidding cards, and (to boot), play thirteen tricks that they all believed that the auction was complete. We know that at least one player of each side saw the double and east's subsequent pass. Thus, in order for the auction to be over ( as previously suggested) there needs to be two (more) passes in rotation so it is logical that S and W picking up their bidding cards is a euphemism for pass. Albeit, it is not unreasonable to believe that S and W acted on their own misunderstanding (L21) and have no recourse. This suggests (since reopening the auction is foreclosed) that the contract was 1NX, which does not preclude some sort of penalty for procedural irregularities.

West's talent for prescience ought to be put to higher use <g>.

It is notable that south has made the first call. By L17C: The player to dealer’s left makes the second call, and thereafter each player calls in turn in a clockwise rotation. Which has the ramification that West may not without punishment (for violating L17C) L29A: Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification. Which leaves to north, which did make the second call- the consequences for violating L17C being?

I would think that the major change is that the law compels considerably more adjusted scores.

It is apparent that 16D1 (and its ancillary passages) is relevant: ...or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. This should (probably will) achieve an adjusted score.

This particuar failure to follow suit was an irregularity called a revoke. Attention was brought to bear upon the failure to follow suit at a time when the revoke must be corrected. 'If partner says he has none,' does not alter the fact that the failure to follow suit was indeed a revoke.

The failure to contribute a heart (re L67) when holding <sic> a heart was a revoke and attention was drawn to the occurence, where L62A requires correction. That, for whatever reason, the player did not acknowledge the revoke still has consequence laid out in L62A.

Had the revoke been corrected (L62A) as required, the position would have had W with C2 PC. Then a small club to the J will hold, spade hook, top spade and spade ruff to hand, permits a club hook, top club, and spade ruff for 13 tricks.

What is the antecedent to 'the other call'?

void (noun) relates to emptiness (verb) relates to canceling or vacate (the use you allude to) As such, without adequate modification, your use does not include the effects of a time machine- and it would be dubious for contestants (as well as tournament officials) to so believe

L13A and L13F say different things but are not in tension in this case. The TD should recognize that L13F prescribes that removing the errant card and proceeding from that point is the situation: ", then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played the deal may be so played with no change of call." It is notable that L21A is supportive of L13F.

I presently am in the state of turmoil. Prior to this thread I had no difficulty with designating 'win', including those cases which compel** dummy to revoke. After all, there are remedies for revokes. However, the discourse so far has made it plain that the instruction, 'win' is a command to dummy to participate (in contravention of law) in the play, and, I do have problems with that; the view I am contemplating for an appropriate remedy is that declarer's RHO may (but, not must) specify the card (subject to L59) in addition to warranting a severe penalty (as declarer gains information from RHO's exercise of penalty). ** being declarer's agent, dummy is compelled to execute declarer's commands

It has occurred to me that declarer may well give the instruction 'win' while dummy has cards in the suit led- none of which are higher than those already contributed; and it seems to me that given L46 that instruction compels dummy to contribute a trump.

It does not beggar my belief. I will point out that euphemisms are dangerous things. And it behooves anyone that seeks to legislate what they mean.... to legislate exactly one meaning. I can imagine you have given this effort quite some time, yet, I am having difficulty figuring out which particular card is specified when dummy has no card of the suit led.