axman

L68D. Play Ceases After any claim or concession, play ceases.... L44G. Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won. Once a claim occurs, the player that won the preceding trick is deprived of leading to the next trick. Hence, an irregularity [for instance]. As I suggested, there exists a misapprehension with respect to the physics of the game that proliferates to this day.

I would think that the reason the laws are as they are resides in the physics of the game, or as the case probably being- the misapprehension of the physics of the game. For instance most believe that claims are the way the game is supposed to be played, when actually, claims are an irregularity- mind you, not necessarily a bad irregularity, but as there is ample evidence that bad things can and do happen after a claim..... Here are some of the earliest revisions to duplicate and rubber: 1933 duplicate LAW No.41 Claiming Tricks (a) If Declarer claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, he must place his cards face up on the table and make a complete statement as to how he intends to play the rest of the hand. If he has not volun­tarily made a complete statement, either opponent may require him to do so, and thereafter any matter which his statement has left unsettled, shall be settled as this opponent directs. (b) Declarer cannot call any cards which may have been exposed in consequence of his action, nor can his cards be called by his opponent. No exposure of cards made in connection with such claim can be treated as an act establishing a revoke. © If an adversary claims the remaining tricks or any number thereof, Declarer may require him to play out the deal. In that case the claiming adversary’s cards are not exposed, and he may play them in any legal manner, but all cards remaining in his partner’s hand are exposed and subject to call by Declarer. (d) If, during the play, any player suggests the possible outcome of a deal without claiming a definite number of tricks, or makes any remark regarding it which might influence the play, Declarer or either adversary (as the case may be) may require him to clarify his remark. If, after clarification, it amounts to a claim of a definite number of tricks, the usual procedure in such cases shall be followed. LAW No.42 Conceding Tricks (a) Declarer may concede one or more tricks to the adversaries. (b) Either adversary may concede one or more tricks to Declarer un­less the other adversary promptly objects; but if the conceding adversary faces his cards, they are exposed. © If a claim, or a concession, of tricks has been accepted and all players have in consequence exposed their cards, no player can claim that the play of the hand shall be continued. If a side has conceded a trick or tricks which it could not lose by any play of the cards, the other side cannot claim such trick or tricks. (ci) 1949 DUPLI­CATE[/b] CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH CANNOT BE LOST 84. The concession of a trick which cannot be lost by any play of the cards is void, provided the error is brought to an opponent’s attention before the round has ended and the board has been moved. CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH HAS BEEN WON 85. If a player concedes a trick he has in fact won (as by claiming nine tricks when his side has won ten, or conceding defeat of a contract his side has fulfilled), the concession is void, provided the error is brought to the Director’s attention within 30 minutes after the end of the session. DEFENDER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS 86. A defender may show any or all of his remaining cards to declarer for the purpose of establishing a claim or concession. If a defender makes a claim or concession in any other manner, he may be liable to penalty under section 20. 87. A concession of tricks by a defender is not valid unless his partner accedes. This provi­sion does not preclude the enforcement of a penalty for a defender’s irregularity. 35 DECLARER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS 88. If declarer intentionally exposes his hand, specifically claims or concedes one or more of the remaining tricks, or suggests that play may be curtailed, it is deemed to be a claim by declarer; and— (a) Play should cease; and declarer should place and leave his hand face upwards on the table and forthwith make an adequate state­ment of his intended line of play. (b) At any time after declarer’s claim a defender may face his hand and may suggest a play to his partner. Declarer may not enforce any penalty for an irregularity com­mitted by a defender whose hand is so faced. DETERMINATION OF DISPUTED CLAIMS 89. If either opponent questions a claim or concession of any trick, the Director should be summoned forthwith and no action of any kind should be taken pending his arrival. The Direc­tor determines the result on the board, awarding any doubtful trick to the claimant’s opponents. Before determining said result, he may— (a) Require the claimant to state the order in which he proposes to play his remaining cards, and forbid any departure from any statement made by the claimant; (b) Require or forbid play to continue. 1948 RUBBER CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH CANNOT BE LOST 84. The concession of a trick which cannot be lost by any play of the cards is void if attention is called to the error before the cards have been mixed together. CONCESSION OF TRICK WHICH HAS BEEN WON 85. If a player concedes a trick he has in fact won (as by claiming nine tricks when his side has already won ten, or conceding defeat of a contract his side has fulfilled), the concession is void. If the score has been entered it may be corrected as provided in section 93. DEFENDER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS 86. A defender may show any or all of his remaining cards to declarer for the purpose of establishing a claim or concession. If a defender makes a claim or concession in any other manner, he may be liable to penalty under section 20. 87. A concession of tricks by a defender is not valid unless his partner accedes. This provision does not preclude the enforcement of a penalty for a defender’s irregularity. DECLARER CLAIMING OR CONCEDING TRICKS 88. If declarer intentionally exposes his hand, specifically claims or con­cedes one or more of the remaining tricks, or suggests that play may be curtailed, it is deemed to be a claim by declarer; and— (a) Play should cease; and declarer should place and leave his hand face upwards on the table and forthwith make an adequate statement of his intended line of play. (b) At any time after declarer’s claim a defender may face his hand and may suggest a play to his partner. Declarer may not enforce any pen­alty for an irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced. © Declarer’s claim must be allowed if both defenders accede to it, or if either defender allows his hand to be mixed with other cards. (d) Either defender may require that play continue, in which case section 89 applies. 89. If either defender requires that play continue after declarer’s claim, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face upwards on the table. Declarer may make no play inconsistent with any statement he may have made. Unless declarer has stated his intention to do so at the time of making his claim— (a) He may not lead a trump while either defender has a trump. (b) He may not finesse either in the suit led or in trumping the suit led. If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited by this section, either de­fender may require him to withdraw it, provided neither defender has played a card after it.

The problems you allude to derive mostly from the words that surround the issue- particularly within 69,70,71- not just 68C. iow merely improving 68C will not bring your desires to fruition. When I was writing law my pertinent language was Clarifying Statement Claimer has the responsibility to resolve points of doubt at the time of a claim. A statement sufficient to completely resolve the unplayed* cards and execute the claim should be provided. 1. The opponents shall allow claimer to complete his clarification without interruption. 2. If the opponents impede the clarification claimer may complete the statement without prejudice to his claim. 3. Failure to clarify the claim within a reasonable time presumes that no further statement will be made; and at that time the opponents are free to dispute the claim. * Including the number of remaining tricks claimed/lost (making no mention of the condition of the contract)

correction: delete as it does not satisfy the data. Further, there is insufficient data to treat this as a puzzle. Besides talking to the players, I suggest that it is possible that the board was not fouled [but perhaps the record keeping was].

[a] the most likely order will be on the guide card. many howells are set up with board progression down- this suggests that [given the contracts] the boards started at 3 and was fouled [suspected] after 2 when the cards were returned, and played in fouled form at 1 and then 4; or, complementary- started at 1?? and were fouled prior to playing at 3.

Considering 'premature play' by all 'during the auction' at some point exposed cards impose enforced passes [L24] at which point you have achieved a complete auction.

At S’s turn to call, did S elect to bid, double or redouble? No. At W’s turn to call, did W elect to bid, double or redouble? No. From WBF2008: Pass — a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble.

Sometimes it is difficult to sift the wheat from the chafe. First, what was the last bid? 3N. Is the auction complete? Many players use the picking up of their bidding cards as a euphemism for pass. This is sufficient to rule the auction complete. The argument that S & W were not fully aware of what occurred on the other side, and thus did not call by euphemism is invalid: LAW 21A. No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. Which also speaks to not adjusting for the play. In theory, regulations are devised to protect the players; and for players that cannot be bothered to satisfy the regulations should not be indemnified. Table result stands.

training is done after ocr on the doc. you highlight the 'text' that is incorrect and right click to get a menu, select train to get a dialog. that is where you use {}[] as a euphemism. then, in your word processor use find/replace [to see the suit symbol]. in other words omnipage doesn't train to get suit symbol- it finds suit graphics and ocrs a character you have chosen. you will want to save the training file for when you ocr similar quality documents [i find that the program tends to get confused between different type faces so you will want to train to different training files. you can if you wish try old training files in hopes of not needing to train for new projects].

Even though there must be others, one hand seems to stick out from the early days [the spots banished from memory- in order to escape the death penalty]. At unfavorable CHO closes out the auction in three rounds at 6C possessing no more information than I hold a minimum 1C opening and an opponent holds spades. For this collection of cards 12 tricks requires all three finesses, both 3-3 breaks, four pitches before touching trumps, and the difficult to find killing** double dummy lead- because the defense has two cashing aces and two cashing kings. Sadly, declarer got them all- as there were still more than a dozen boards to grind out with this CHO :( ** as in defense killing

I've used omnipage [14] for several years at 300dpi scan. it has a train feature and I train cdhs as {}[]. There are fonts that recognize those characters as bridge symbols. however, what is do is to then search and replace for the character map symbols. Sometimes the ocr skips the symbols and you have to edit them back in [usually best done during the proofing process. I also find it desirable to recognize bridge deals as spreadsheet tables rather than regular text. good luck

When presenting a question it is important to ask the question that you want answered. For instance, you have two questions [1] what is the correct ruling? and [2] how to deal with it as a playing*** TD (as in how to avoid cancelling one or more boards to avoid delay of game)? On the basis given the way to proceed is as follows: State that your finding of agreed facts are that X LOOT to T6. A table ruling was made that it was not accepted and the errant card was to be returned to hand without penalty. The errant card was not returned to hand but was mixed with the quitted cards and there was subsequent play, it now being T13 where now X has no card to contribute. On this basis rule that play to date stands and that L67B requires the errant card is to be removed from the quitted cards and returned to hand. Verify agreement that the card is the correct one and require that play continue, and**, any other issues [such as L67/64 and PPs] will be ruled upon later. ** The key to dealing with this situation is that the TD needs to know what must be done now and what can be done later: [as time is recognized as a factor and taking advantage of there being but one trick left- then require that play continue, record the number of tricks but not calculate a score (but instead write an R next to the sine for the round. Then require that the players record (this permits delaying a possible ruling) T5 thru T13, underlining the card led and circling the winning card, and putting a square around the errant card. Sign and date the record and return it (tell them where to find you!) before the next round. Admonish the players to not start a board after the end of round warning is given. The play record will be use to L64 issues and such] *** when responding to a summons a playing TD attempts to avoid gaining information about hands he is scheduled to play later in hopes of avoiding artificial scores

We are given to understand that the four players have quit their cards to T5 before offender plays the first card to T6 [a lead**]. However, the player that did win T5 next plays a card about which the law says: L53C. Proper Lead Made Subsequent to Irregular Lead Subject to Law 53A, if it was properly the turn to lead of an opponent of the player who led out of turn, that opponent may make his proper lead to the trick of the infraction without his card being deemed played to the irregular lead. When this occurs, the proper lead stands and all cards played in error to this trick may be withdrawn. Law 16D applies but there is no further rectification. The status thus far is the first card to a trick has been played and a second card to that trick has been played. The second card is deemed to not have been played to the first card. At this point the law provides that the first card can be withdrawn [ostensibly not a PC if returned to hand expeditiously] but the player did not do so. Next, the offender and the other two players play cards. Offender’s second card, though quitted with T6, ostensibly was exposed during T6, and, does not belong to T6; and, his first card does belong. **By definition: Lead — the first card played to a trick.

Is it possible, say probable, that merely the possession, or at least the utilization of opener’s system infracts law or regulation? After all, our heroes have executed their system as written have they not? And by doing so there is no answer for them doing ANYthing else…..is, there? Which is to say that should the IB be in time rejected, then surely they must satisfy their system and repeat that canceled call. By now you are getting the drift---naa, not yet. So look at it this way. The principle of appearances states that things tend to be the way they appear. For instance, what is the effect of 2D? Does it not provide bidding room for opener to mention his supposed major at the two level thereby conserving 28 bidding steps rather than the 26 he otherwise might have had available? Thus the meaning of 2D is established as conserving 28 bidding steps. Now, what legal call or calls are available to responder that are more precise than that?

Applying law as written is not ridiculous; conversely, writing such law is bad form.

I have spent some time parsing L12C2 and am quite fascinated. In part [for example] C2a provides that an art score for the NOS may be [since it must be at least 60%] ANY thing greater than 60% except [C2c] when his session score is more than 60% [in which case his score is EXACTLY his session percentage]. To put a fine point on it, the art score can be 200% or 236% or…. So long as the session score of the other boards is not greater than 60%. I thus see no valid reason to believe the argument that convinced you otherwise.

A dubious assertion. In America there is a nationally rated TD that has a policy of requiring a defender with an exposed card [at a time other than his turn] to deem it not a PC, and return it to hand without penalty. Supposedly he relies upon L50. Then, there are the curious words ‘the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law’ found in L64C. the curiosity arising from the fact that there is no definition for the standard ‘insufficiently compensated’

This assertion is dubious.

Pran is spot on that a player’s suspicion is not sufficient to cause a correctly prepared board to be fouled. However, there is a general impression that the fact of two boards being identical is sufficient alone to rule one of them is a fouled board. Not so. If boards are correctly prepared, then they are to be played- including when they are identical. In other words, once a board has been started, the time to investigate [draw attention to one’s suspicion] is upon completion. To draw attention earlier is to provide inferences to partner as to the cards one holds other than by call or play- and that fouls the board.

Where in the facts does it say that EW took more than its share of the allotted time AND thereby was responsible for the the play otherwise extending into the next round?... conditions I think would be necessary to justify a PP for improper delay of game.

In this area the law has provisions that do not make sense. When E claimed that he has the card that W has led, he has named such card as one that he holds. L49 provides that such card must be faced as a PC- notably the offense occurred during the play period [the distinction being made for those that know what to do with cards exposed during the auction period; what is not so clear is the law’s effect upon such card- when an auction starts up subsequent to the ending of the auction period]. The effect of L17D1 unilaterally specifies that all of W’s calls [to date] on the board are cancelled. There are no qualifying provisions that restrict its application other than W’s having called after seeing the incorrect hand but not seeing the correct one. Additionally, L17D2 provides that W must look at the correct hand and then call, thereafter the auction continues. Again, there are no qualifying provisions that restrict its application other than W’s having called after seeing the incorrect hand but not seeing the correct one. However, there is a qualifying provision whereby [ostensibly once the auction is ?over?,] an art score be awarded. It thus seems that there is much to do which has little purpose. So, what’s clear to me is that the correct thing to do is to cancel the original OL [put the wrong cards back into their board], get the correct cards in W’s hand, and rule that the auction stands [W’s bidding is the result of his own misunderstanding- L21A]. Rule E’s card a PC and give declarer OL penalties. Then require that W lead after declarer gives his option.

One might observe the following passage of L73D.1: ..... However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.... Notably, a question falls amongst those things that are a variation in tempo/ manner.

Painful experience has demonstrated that most have difficulty coping in a single universe. Foisting multiple universes upon people will for the most part discombobulate them. I think it ill advised to impose multiple universes upon bridge.

The unestablished revoke having been corrected, the S2 becomes a PC. Declarer exercised his lead option where “a spade must be led if he has one; otherwise the penalty is discharged” so the S2 is restored to hand. Info from the S2 is UI to defenders. The DQ has been led. Notably, if the LHO has a spade the DQ is a revoke.

It is presumptuous to believe ‘it is assumed that it is the dummy's turn to lead or play a subsequent card.’ Further, the language of 45D specifies ‘If dummy places in the played position’ as the relevant qualification. Yes, declarer’s agent is not empowered to act on his own volition; yet, by doing so [having designated] the card must be played. And having been played, presumably does not preclude it from being affected by other passages. There is some question as to who qualifies [or ought it be said, does not qualify] as OS.