axman

Parsing the law: 44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won. Says [after the first trick] that whoever leads to a trick won the previous trick. Say what?? There is a difference between the winner of a trick has the right to lead to the next trick, and, defining the leader to a trick as the winner of the previous trick. Also notable: LAW 65A. Completed Trick When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table. 65A requires cards to be quitted immediately after four cards have been played [it seems possible that one player might play more than one card to a trick, perhaps in order to correct revoke]. However, it does not follow that not waiting for the quitting nullifies play to the next trick.

A way to provide more time per board when there is limited event time is to schedule fewer rounds.

I seem to be aware of some doctrine that says multiple irregularities are addressed in their chronological order. My mind is that such a thought is rubbish, but that is not to say that rules can be made willy nilly. But, you are probably right that the simultaneous aspect presents insurmountable problems even then. Generally, my thinking is that most multiple irregularities ought to be resolved in reverse chronology. It being problematic when there are simultaneous irregularities. My thinking is that the law needs to provide a good mechanism for breaking the tie. For instance, when fixing which came first, it is the player in closest proximity in rotation to the rightful turn. That way, there is a methodical route to backtrack. But, if the rightful player is involved, particularly when he is nearly simultaneous but distinctly after, there are additional issues. But then, there are real problems with the definition of the first call (L17B) and the second call (17C) when they are made by other than the specified individuals. And to a large extent, that is a problem with what the law doesn't do. I suspect that no one wants to hear the answer to that, at least the way the law is presently constructed.

I can think of a couple of things. First, the law doesn't provide for untangling simultaneous COOTs if at least one of the simultaneous calls wasn't in turn. Then it occurred to me that when someone acts OOT it ought to be handled as a case of fortune telling**- if not condoned as legal, then when it becomes his turn he must repeat it subject to any remedies for illegality that may come his way. While some may be displeased by such a tortuous path- sufficient players may tend to exercise enough caution that they will avoid traveling it. ** as in, the player took his turn early so he keeps it later; who are we to give him more turns that some one that obeys the rules?

I am inclined to believe that considering previous play [beyond what was clarified] to be inappropriate. It may make us feel good. But it may contain irregularities like revokes which make previous play possibly 'unreliable'**; and since possibly can disrupt sometimes, it must disrupt every time. And that is sufficient to not consider unclaimed previous play. **just imagine a 'proven finesse' after a player revokes.

"then tables a ♦ claiming 2 of the last 3, conceding a ♣. W leads another ♥ as the claim statement is being made" The statement says that D2 was tabled at the same time clarification began. H2 tabled afterward if only by a litte bit, but apparently before recognizing a clarification in progress. Therefore play stops upon the D2 and further play (H2) is 'voided'.

It is not a matter of forfeiture. The TD explains the current status. In this case, what matters to the LOL is the effect going forward, namely that right now- there has been thought since what matters is what is permitted without penalty rather than what the original intention was. It indeed would be beneficial to additionally explain that if action had taken place immediately, then the correction would have stood; and the LOL would have remembered the advice for the next time!

In both instances dealer is asking a question [apparently to ascertain if there is a penalty for changing his 1C]. In both instances it appears that what he does depends upon the answer. At a minimum, this is pause for thought. Those activities are a L16 source of UI to pard. L25 does not permit a change in either instance; but if he persists with a change anyway, then 25B applies (including a PP) as well as a DP for insubordination.

A corollary question concerns repercussions when, after the revoke is established, a defender merely announces he revoked (does not expose his card)? When the player says he revoked he is announcing that he had a club. To which L49 speaks: .....when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); In such circumstance, by his announcement he is compel to expose his card as a PC. Some may argue that saying you have a club is not the same as naming the card: however, L46B2 when speaking of naming a suit states 2.If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

There seems to be some consternation over what a player is and what a spectator is. Consider: Player- one of the four contestants playing a board Spectator- a person watching the play; a non player present at the table

Considering what claimer said: "Drawing the trump. I have seven heart tricks - the king is the only one out..." Declarer claimed he would lose no hearts (tricks) and the HK was outstanding. When reading the claim above it is clear that there is exactly one way to play the first round of hearts. The ace must be played to the first round because that was the claim; looking at it from a different direction, to someone that 'believed' that there was exactly the HK outstanding, it would be irrational to not play the HA on the first round- and the presence of a 14th heart does not interrupt the claimed play of the HA on the first round.

If the revoke is not corrected in time <sic> it becomes established- ostensibly subject to a 1 trick penalty.

I do not concur that benefit from the questioning the revoker lands solely upon the revoking side. The predicate for mandatory correction (distinct from voluntary correction) of an unestablished revoke is the acknowledgment that the ueRevoke exists. The inquiry is the prelude to forcing the acknowledgment. Here is an occasion when it is to the benefit of the non revoking side: Consider a contract of 6N where declarer has 15 tricks except that the defense has 7 spades if taken off the top. The SA being led where RHO discards a diamond. Here, it is to revoker's advantage to not acknowledge his revoke even if the inquiry is made; why? Because correction means a PC which creates a lead penalty against LHO- and voila! Declarer makes 6 instead of down five (six less the one trick penalty).

44A gives a definition of revoke. If the condition is met, the revoke occurred. If attention is drawn to the condition but the revoke was not contemporaneously acknowledged, the failure to acknowledge is not a predicate for deeming that attention was not so drawn. Under the conditions given: if the TD establishes within the correction period that the subject revoke occurred, it is subject to the trick transfer penalty in addition to any other relevant remedy- just as if it were prior to agreeing the score.

Maybe a soliloquy is in order. Consider a generic example: W 1H-2S-3H-*P P - 3S-P -P 4H-P -P - X PPP 1H= 5+H, if balanced 2.5+QT 2S= preemptive, does not promise (or deny) forward going strength 3H= invitational values in hearts (no assertion of speed bid causing tempo break) * = pause of 3-4s (normal tempo of .5s) 3S= not defined by system After play W asserts 3S was an infraction given that the pause of S suggests that he has working values, and after N's preempt N would have no reason to act again absent UI (indeed, N's hand suggests that it could be disastrous to reopen; and south- spades and hearts, and honors that he needn't have had for his bidding). It is reasonable, upon verification of the efficacy of the assertion, to conclude that 3S was an infraction having the consequence of preventing the other side from declaring 3H. In other words, the expectation prior to the infraction was 3HW compared to the expectation after the infraction of 3SN. The difference is damage. For this hand the limit of the cards was 2S. Which is to say that the expected outcome of the hand absent the infraction was 3H-1. After the infraction the expectation was 3S-1. Therefore, the infraction had the effect of breaking the connection to its damage. The principle of continuity states that once the connection to damage is broken it remains broken (it does not matter if it is broken by the NOS or the OS). The connection having been broken, there is no expectation of a score adjustment; notably, west's judgment (also known as his bidding system) to carry on merely results in a score that is earned, however painful that may be when he achieves his 8 tricks.

I have no idea how the WBF wants to define it. But I would not define damage by comparing apples and oranges. At the least, it would be a comparison between the change in expectation. For instance: Damage- that which the NOS has been deprived, or the OS gains, as a consequence of an irregularity; where (for the NOS) it includes the being tangibly and improperly (a) led to act on bridge inferences that were materially different from those absent the irregularity or (b) deprived of declaring or defending a contract that was earned; Adjustments may be made when the expected outcome (of the NOS) attributed the irregularity is less than the expected outcome absent the irregularity; however, there is no damage subject to adjustment when the result is greater than or equal to the expected outcome absent the irregularity even if the definition of damage is satisfied.

The law speaks only to when damage exists, it does not speak to what damage is.

Play continues only if there was no concession- as in the player merely ATTEMPTED to concede but had not yet conceded ('because' pard objected in time): 68D. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases ...... The player abandoned his hand by exposing his cards- that is a concession.

Unfond memories revisited. Such an occurrence befell me during my first tournament session, and as suggested I have a few thoughts on the matter. When scoring a board I recorded the contract of 3N at which point W and then E protested** that the contract was 2N. The TD asked maybe a couple questions and ruled the contract 3N. I am confident it came out that S [the bidder of 3N] had used a soft voice but I do not recollect whether it came out there had been particular pause and that his voice was not garbled. What I believe to have been the source of consternation was that the TD did not enumerate his finding of the facts nor how he arrived at his conclusion. In other words, it is a dereliction of duty to merely investigate, the TD must report on his investigation and explain his reasoning. Perhaps if he had my day would not have been ruined by worry from the opponents' appeal of the ruling. ** E did not defend to his best advantage regards axman

Before doing so, some would be careful to consider the possibility that the capacity of the cards has not yet been exceeded, nor would likely be exceeded.

The reference was to how Shuster- so as to take retroactive advantage of L45C4b- asserted absurd properties to Stansby's "#$!^%$$" to mean that Stansby had changed her play of the spade, when in fact Stansby in no way changed her play, contemporaneously or otherwise.

Vancouver #5 lives!

XX is the expression that the contract will make and thus breaks the connection to 'damage'.

What if at the point of 3N-P-P-P the game is interrupted and the putative defenders are told away from the table that 2N is a normal contract, it makes 8 tricks easily- but not 9, and that 3N would be viewed as an UI infraction- and they have the opportunity now, and only now, to protest the infraction (adjust the contract to 2N or leave it at 3N).** ** I know which I would select <g> What I am attempting to demonstrate here is that the infraction (rather than the defender) broke the "connection to damage". From a procedural point of view it does not work to stop play and interject extraneous information, however, it is not too far to reach that once play is over to 'visualize walking in those same footsteps'. And what I suggest is adopting the principle that events that are connected remained connected until the connection is broken; and its corollary- a connection between events that has been broken remains broken.

My thinking is that it is unseemly to coerce (a la L16) someone who did nothing wrong to disadvantage himself. With that in mind... As WBF2008 stands now there is room to interpret crucial passages. For instance: definitions- 'Opponent — a player of the other side; a member of the partnership to which one is opposed.' Are not all other entrants, as such, members of a partnership to which one is opposed? I do think so. Reading L16A2: Players may also take account ... of the traits of their opponents,.... provides room to contemplate that when entrants (which is to say opponents) at some other table improperly speak so loudly as to be overheard, that the anointment of authorization occurs such that it falls outside the compulsion of L16C1: When a player accidentally receives unauthorized information …. WBF2008 probably was not written with the above in mind, but if it were, there likely would be considerably fewer bad actors.