axman

Note that 12B1 merely states when damage exists; but, does not define what it is.

I think that 'illegal' is rather strong invective with regard to 'than usual'. Perhaps 'bending propriety' more resembles the act. My thinking is that 'than usual' can have its own relative perspective. For instance, I am reminded of an auction where RHO dithered nearly 3 minutes reaching for he bidding box and then un-reaching. Finally, skipping the bidding. my normal non skip tempo being 1/4sec came to the fore rather than my normally fastidious 12sec skip tempo. My lapse would seem forgivable since (a) it was singular and (b) I had 3 minutes to contemplate the next three hands...

Sometimes the implications of language can be obscured. Is it probable that, by law, a defender can claim for his side only those tricks that his hand will take? that is, referring to L70D2: The Director does not accept any part of a defender’s claim that depends on his partner’s selecting a particular play from among alternative normal* plays.

I would like to put a different view upon it. The Unblocking was not included in the clarification and it can be said that a ruling turns on that fact, plus, if it is determined as fact that the clarification was not interrupted by an opponent.

If you are running your own game I would suggest as sponsor that you write and post your own regulation along the following lines: 1. Once you touch a bidding card you are committed forthwith to place your call on the table. 2. Corrections 2a. If you grab the wrong card, announce immediately “Not this” and finish putting the stack on the table and immediately either (1) remove the extra cards or (2) fetch the missing cards. < If you grabbed from the wrong pile then put them away and draw from the correct pile.> Doing so affords a L25A correction; failure to do so results in a L25B penalty. 2b. If an opponent disputes the alacrity of correcting a call, to obtain a ruling he must summon the TD before acting. 3. Once you let go of your <completed- see 2.> call <on the table> it is LHO's turn.

I do not think that a regulation requiring defenders to draw attention to a(n apparently) deficient dummy is in conflict with law. However, such a regulation is repugnant and I will afford it no mind.

I don't know what too severe refers to, however, WBF2008 as written suggests that there is a lack of appreciation of the severe disadvantage that can arise from infractions that spawn PCs. It is not easy to balance the playing field after such infractions- and the law demonstrates the difficulty by failing to rise to the occasion. I think that if the law were properly constructed Lamford would suggest the severity meter would reach new highs.

This morning I listened to the Gold interview. Gold recounted that 2N by agreement was non forcing (as in definitely more than sub minimum but not promising strong for the bidding). It was 3D that conveyed GF values- rather than 2N. The bone of contention was after the ruling it came to light that the first poll was based upon incorrect facts. Then a second poll was taken in conjunction with the review of that ruling. In talking afterward to those pollees the English feel that the second poll was <also> based upon incorrect facts. I have not been able to track down 4N [the WBF library of contestant CCs seems unavailable] so there is no way yet to draw conclusions as to the reasonableness of the bidding post 5D. My understanding is that the ruling did not contain an explanation as to the reasoning used to come to its conclusion. As a Monday morning quarterback it seems possible that hearts are wide open (hasn't opener's 2N promised a balanced hand? without identifying holding heart control?) so eleven tricks may well be an embarrassing limit. And that just might suggest that it was 'contra-indicated' for responder to use KC.

It is probably worthwhile to note that via the passage of time it is possible that a contemporaneous ruling may well be controlled by different law/regulation/facts than a ruling that is not contemporaneous. For instance, facts established at the time may be more believable than those at a later and more contentious moment.

Reading L54, L54A is pre conditioned by L54 which applies to the case where the card was faced by the originally incorrect leader AND the originally correct leader has his card unfaced on the table. In the case at hand it is my understanding that the latter condition was not met.

The short of it would be a. very elaborate b. narrow the size of a club to 4 members and a limited number of subs- as the effort expended in deciphering the opponents' methods would be immense and to be a member of more than one club could get you mixed up- and be a security risk to the other clubs you belong to.

The law is host to nearly countless complex and convoluted principles; and merely arranging the words to clearly express complex and convoluted principles does not really achieve simplification. Identify sound principles and clearly express them so as to not be in conflict- that brings simplification that is worthwhile. regards axman

When people say this they rarely comprehend what it means. For one thing, it means that you are telling the opponents (and for that matter all whom are present)what you have in your hand- because what you glean from partner's bidding includes judgments predicated upon your own holdings. The best standard for describing your communication of system is when the describing is done for an auction with no cards dealt.

I think that the law ought to permit asking (in this case) about P-P-1N when a hand is not in progress. Which has nothing to do with a player being aware (as in before the hand) of it or anything else.

Some consternation has arisen with respect to dealing with a T12 revoke that has been established. Having suffered from such a situation on 2/4/1998 when holding two aces- one of them trump, and electing to revoke with the trump at T12 Ill offer a word or two. It has been argued that 62D but not 62B applies. Well, it is both that apply; yet it is a dubious undertaking. Why dubious? In this case the law 62D specifies the revoke be corrected. L62 specifies what to do. And what does it specify? That revoker L62B1 withdraw the revoke card and it becomes a PC; plus he substitute L62B a legal card. It seems silly to point out that revoker's only card not belonging to a trick is his PC- but that is indeed the case. Irrespective of following suit or not that PC is the only legal card revoker can substitute to T12- if L59 has anything to say to the matter. Some believe we ought to pursue lawlessness, but I do not count myself among them- as my fundamental belief is that the only way to obtain good law is to rigorously abide by the law we got.

Yes. Very much so. For the law to serve its true use- provide solutions- there is great value from knowing empirically that the solutions satisfy the notion of justice. Lamford's hypotheticals test via examination; raising to consciousness the multitude of issues that can occur. And thus by bringing issues to the surface, creating understanding with regards (a) how the words operate and (b) whether we like the outcome of how the words operate.

Two notes. 1. At the time the TD was called, L57A operates. 2. As for the definition of damage, WBF2008 only specifies when damage exists but not what it is- as in damage exists when there is a green spot on a blue moon: we know at such time that damage exists, but not what it is.

If we are smart enough to know (aren't we?) the implications of W's infraction there is no need to inquire as to why N did not play his Q immediately. Even if we aren't smart enough, and hence ask, and are told N wasn't thinking about the infraction, it does not affect the ruling because declarer's expectation when he infracted was that N had something to think about- condoning the infraction. Declarer has the right to take inference- but given the premise that his infraction ostensibly caused the tempo it is justice for him to not have such right- and certainly in this case whatever inference taken has no justification to appeal for a score better than was earned with the cards.

What the WBF has done with 25A was to muddle in the wrong way. They specify that the condition for correcting a call is that it was unintended. What they should have specified is advice to the player who did not believe it was unintended that he shouldn't (as a matter of propriety) even entertain Changing it; and instead focus upon an outwardly discernable way of measuring that a call was unintendted such as by the alacrity with which it was Corrected- as distinguished from Changed.

16D2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information. Notice the bold and notice that 28B does not withdraw/ cancel the COOT.

From 16C1: 1. When a player accidentally receives unauthorized What I am thinking is that W's encounter would not qualify as an accident. and from 16C2© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result; or What I am thinking is that W has made a ruling (to cancel play) not supported in law. And the TD acted incorrectly in dealing with it. and from 12A1:1. The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent. It appears to me that W's excursion to retrieve a board is a violation that the law fails to provide a remedy for; and thus, an adjusted score is warranted. Notably, the auction had progressed to the point that NS had run out of gas so it appears that 5D making whatever is the appropriate adjustment.

The condition under which 16D2 speaks is not met.

I suggest reading the law again. Creating UI in 16D2 arises from canceled/withdrawn calls.

I suggest reading the law again. Canceling a call comes from application of L29. Application of L28B prohibits rectification of COOT (which includes prohibiting canceling it).