axman

My view is that only 1. the revoker, and, 2. the LHO, ought to have the right to draw attention to a failure to follow. This belief rests mostly upon the principles of one action per turn (acting only at one's turn) the minimizing the creation of UI. As such, the LHO will always have the opportunity to coerce a revoker to pay the PC penalty instead of paying the trick penalty. And certainly, revoker can choose the same, and in practice typically does. And, by the same token, an opponent (RHO) ought not be able to illegally coerce revoker to create a PC. This seems to me to be a balancing of the equities…not a flaw. Now, the true problem is incorporating tripe like …each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. Because when it is made law there is some unsuspecting soul that believes it. Think about it. Just how important is not revoking when a revoke must not be corrected after it is established?

I rule that caddies move the boards. Oh, the TD doesn't want to do caddy work, then make some relay stands and run the event the right way.

The primary attribute of laws is that they not need explaining. As such, if the users of the laws do the unwanted, it is a signal to the writers to improve their writing.

The primary defect that I can devise is that a system of extraneous communication (read 73B) can be concocted in relation to say, the existence of the IB, or say its correction in the same suit. Also, I would think that such concoctions could in general be fashioned where remedies amount to a do over. I would tend to believe that there are few (probably am not on firm ground here) who are skillful enough to pull it off, and fewer of those still- inclined to want to pull it off- which makes 1987wbf27 a reasonable approach to a remedy as it is rather restrictive and thus less likely to be prone to abuse. There is much to be said for simplicity. Going into the myriad of issues could get tedious.

Merely because the power exists does not prevent it from being wielded unwisely. 80B2e perhaps would be clearer if truncated to The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include: to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions. . What makes the particular screen regs 'legal' in spite of creating possible 80B2f conflicts with law is , together with any special conditions .

What you said was that the 'noticing' conveys the power to condone without restriction in time; including, say, after the pushing the board, partner not condoning, etc. and, what I said was that the correction needed to occur without the other side of the screen knowing there had been an IB. Notably, 80B2e provides for conditions in accordance with these laws and additionally with (distinguished by 'together with') special conditions not (necessarily) in accordance with these laws. On its face, special conditions for bidding and play conveys the power to create unfettered regulations not in accordance with law. As 80B2e provides for special conditions for bidding and play, the restriction (not in conflict with law) of 80B2f doesn't attach. And permitting these two alternative universes to exist simultaneously is problematic as demonstrated by the push the board regulation example where RHO condones as legal the IB via pushing the board across the screen. Now, how is LHO to know that his partner has condoned the IB while 27A grants him sole him power to condone? Noting that RHO may well have pushed when being unaware of the IB at the time. And, what is the remedy for damage to the OS when LHO does not condone, the board is returned to correct, and it then is learned that the call had already been condoned (as now, the NOS has UI that LHO did not want to condone)? Note that a close reading of 80B2e requires that the parentheses conveys an example regulation that is empowered by 80B2e (rather than a requirement of law). In particular 'provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied' is not a specification that screen regulations must satisfy because of law, but a sample regulation.

I doubt that is the effect. My reading suggests that if the irregularity has been corrected prior to 'pushing the board' then it may (as provided by regulation) be corrected without penalty.

I was pointing out that the focus of 80B2e was regulations must first conform to the law; And that Gordon's screen regulation (that the pusher that pushes thereby condones) can conflict with law and thus be outside the power to regulate.

I have extensive experience in this area and my observations cut across all stripes. Consider my observation of a top fifty player over many years. As dealer he is first to remove his cards, glances for a small fraction of a second and passes before anyone has removed their cards. Everyone now has something to think about, actually, a lot to think about…and indeed usually someone(s) does think a long time. Now… dealer has a lot to think about and he takes more than a minute- considerably more. This is not rare- but typical. On the other hand, this is what I do. Say I am the dealer and the opponents have their meal on the table and they are digging into the fried chicken and mashed potatoes. I wait quietly until they have finished, pull out their cards, make their plan, and act like they are ready to do battle. The board finishes in 9 minutes and the second finishes in 7. If I had started the auction 'normal like' they would have taken 23 minutes. I know because when 'ask them politely' they take 24 minutes. However counterintuitive it sounds, my experience bears it out.

This is an interesting view considering L80B2e. Consider 2S-P//P-1H** //= screen **= board pushed by RHO condoning 1H Law 27A.1. Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO. It is accepted if that player calls. taking note that it is LHO that treats IB legal Thus suggesting that the screen regulation that condones an IB is contrary to 27A1: L80B2(e) to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).

The dither is about the distinction between a definition which is a description and the definition as to what comprises an infraction. For instance L18 goes to some length to describe how to recognize an IB. And L27 goes to some length to describe what happens after an IB. By reading closely one can figure out that he generally is better off to not IB, but is not in a position to know that an IB is a crime. Kojak and Endicott have suggested that the dither is of no consequence.

I think that a sponsoring organization fails its membership if it doesn't have a regulation requiring players to not start the auction until everyone (at least) appears to be ready. Satisfying such a regulation would avoid confrontations such as this.

I am inclined to see blackshoe's view as so strong that this view has no merit. 12C2 gives the parameters for the range of art scores such that when a (different) law specifies an art score it is important to look to 12C2.

I thought some years ago there was a regulation requiring the exchange of CCs- the idea being that the possession of the other side's card simplified reading it during the hand thus avoiding questions. And, perhaps the regulators have been remiss in not repealing the regulation? Notably, west asserted he was acutely aware at the time of 4H that the NS meaning was important to his action???

The call for the HT is automatically canceled (L46B4) as there is no HT in dummy. Dummy has not yet played a card. Thus the H9 is the first card played to the trick OOT (LOOT). Declarer's comment about the DT is extraneous and not a designation. If declarer fails to accept (L53A) then dummy must lead. However, the law does not first provide for requiring the LOOT be retracted (in order that dummy's card be the first played to the trick and thus be a lead). This is an impasse for which the law does not provide a way to proceed. Notably, L53C gives the otherwise proper player to lead permission (not requirement) to lead without waiting for retraction of the LOOT (but retraction is provided after the correct player does what is impossible to do: lead). However, the same impasse occurs as above for the same reason.

Perhaps a more appropriate view is "normal" includes** playing the lowest card in the suit when not winning the trick. ** as in: but, not limited to

It has just struck me about the importance of wording of L69A: 'Law 69A. When Agreement is Established ' Agreement is established when a contestant assents ...' By definition Contestant will be a pair or team- so when a contestant assents it is going to be 2 assents or 4 assents. I think that when those four people are at different tables there is a problem. I am all in favor that it takes both members of the pair to achieve assent as distinct from but only a single member, but the law does no good service to use a term that has the properties that can be singular, or, plural, or, singular AND plural, or, singular AND/OR plural.

Each side is typically allotted 3 1/2 minutes on average to bid, play, and score a hand. It is sage to use your time wisely. If you need 10sec, 20 sec, 30sec at T1 you ought to take** it prior to playing your card- and it should not prejudice your side regarding UI or improper deception....improper delay of game is a different matter. ** presuming that you maintain your practice; I think the Norwegian regulation specifying 10sec is out of line- All hands are not equal and it makes for inequity to treat them so.

I should think that a problem that arises in such a situation is that certain inferences about the asker's holding approach being reliable; which, in turn imply inferences about what asker believes about the opponents' holding. This is L73B1 territory. I think that permitting the partner to ask is bad.

I doubt that is the appropriate question as there are other means than a PC that pard could 'improperly' be aware of the location of a spot. Probably better is 'What is likely had there been no infraction?' As an attempt to sharpen the point. I confronted the following: I glanced at my hand and my little voice screamed 'the previous player did not mix the cards'. A couple seconds later it whispered 'the contract was 4S E making 9 tricks'. No irregularity occurred during the board: Our auction proceeded 1S-3S and around T7 holding 4-4 diamonds dummy led the DJ and the trick proceeded JQAK. My thinking is that I was surprised that N covered the DJ when she did not know S held the DK. Which appears to be relevent to the situation here.

Note that counting one's cards need not mean that the count was accurate. I might even suggest that it would be a dubious idea for such player to insist his count was accurate and 13: just consider the implications of explaining how the 14th card (from a different deck) got there. Supposedly, L67 has something to say about that crazy extraaneous HA and the ownership of such tricks that may contain it, at least until the cards are mixed.

Not having the standards for byes, then presuming that byes go to the dregs, the late appeal to emotion does not hold much water. Had #8 instead played round 3, it would have been against a dreg; the expected outcome of #8 against a dreg would be a blitz garnering considerably more VPs than 12: and thus expect #9 to not be in the money, but be further in the cold.

Yes. Both; intended call must have existed at the time of the unintended call. Otherwise, L21A there is no redress for acting on one's own misunderstanding [to make the correction without pause for thought, the player necessarily must have had in mind their intended call- since otherwise there would be thought].

I'll suggest that for Law 25A to apply, there has to be the unintended call and the intended call..... 25A1 Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended .....

Such an arrangement appears to be a form of Weasel.