axman

Some care is due here. The passage provides no such qualification; and is in fact rather unilateral. It perhaps is worth ruminating over what effect L45C4a has; and L16D provides its own obfuscation.

There is more to it. Inferences can be powerful stuff. I am reminded of the Crawford hand where the grand rested upon a first round hook in his solid suit. Crawford took inference from the fact that the kibitzers were anxious to see what would happen on the last hand of the day- he reasoned that the eight bagger wasn’t solid and took the hook. Notably, when declarer says, ‘anything’ it is a command telling dummy to collaborate in declaring the hand. The remedy for ‘anything’ is for the defender to have his choice. However ‘his choice’ comes with a heavy cost- it gives declarer inferences that might unlock tricks he otherwise was destined to lose. Thus the remedy is severely flawed and a better one is needed. As in declarer is motivated to not infract in the first place. And such motivation necessarily must be the certainty of severe pain.

It is my understanding that Endicott has curtailed his WBF activities and that Kelso has been named Secretary. In regard of the suggestion- it indicates a lack of awareness as to the length of the affected tentacles.

I would find out what the CoC has to say for the instance where the TD commits the error of misduplicating the boards. My casual observation is that the TD has effectively truncated the match [which is similar to a match which was originally scheduled to be fewer boards than the field]. Given the non linear character of VPs I would wonder about the efficacy of factoring.

The law was constructed in this situation with the purpose of torturing the reader [is what it says believable? Or is it to be parsed differently?] 91A says that the AC cannot overturn a DP. Is arriving at a finding that a DP be changed overruling? No. is appealing a DP overruling a DP? No. A reference suggests looking at L93B3 even though no clear reason is provided for doing so. L93B3 tells what an AC can do with a DP but provides no standard as to the conditions for doing so. 91A. Director’s Powers In performing his duty to maintain order and discipline, the Director is empowered to assess disciplinary penalties in points or to suspend a contestant for the current session or any part thereof. The Director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee (see Law 93B3). 93B3. In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)

For many years I have been analyzing the principles in this type situation and a myriad of related situations. I have not yet settled upon a resolution of the issues but am confident of these principles [in spite of any conflict of current thinking]: [a] if the players play the board none should be disadvantaged [nor feel] constrained by L16/L73 regarding the effects of the extraneous information if the players play the board the score should not be adjusted on account of the effects of the extraneous information [c] if the board is to be played it must be with the concurrence of the four players (see) [d] the culprits should be identified and be assessed a PP [in the case of an adjusted score the PP should be at least a full board] I am inclined to believe that for these agreed facts a fair outcome is impossible and that the board should always be ruled unplayable [as in, do not give the players the option to play], requiring adj scores A+/A+ and a PP to the culprits. With regard to your permitting play with the allowance for indemnity you probably now realize that not only are the players put in an impossible situation but the TD also is in a bad situation. Tyler is on target with L82C.

It is the law that is false logic. It requires the player to do the impossible: Prove a Negative [and to boot- without supplying the standard against which he wlll be judged.]

Given the facts I apparently made the erroneous assumption*** that there is a fixed movement of the boards** [as they are ‘passed’ to start a round] when, apparently, the boards were being 'shared' during a round. I chalk that up to not yet having experienced swiss pairs….. and have now experienced proverbial egg on my face. Anyway, time to get cleaned up. *** for some reason I have believed that the preferred scoring was imps rather than mp **as in the boards would be thus moved in a future round and the two pairs at T5 would move apart to play the board against different opponents in different rounds- therefore four pairs

When the investigation bears out the facts presented including the identity of the player that did the fouling, the offending pairs should be given the explanation that their loud postmortem infracts L90B3 with the consequence that two comparisons have been fouled. That means that four pairs have been deprived of the opportunity to achieve top scores and that the PP will be assessed reflecting the cumulative loss by those four pairs 4*[13imp-AvPlus]= 4*[13-3]= 40 imps. I would think that the intended message will be received hundreds of miles away.

In an attempt to complete the thought consider the following: W, a defender, has played and quitted the H7 to T3 [a spade trick]. When E distracts South, W removes the H7 from the discards [putting it in his hand] and substitutes a different card. Dummy calls the TD asserting that W called attention to his revoke. Has dummy committed an irregularity? No, dummy was not first to draw attention to the revoke- the withdrawing [by W] of the revoke card from the discards drew attention to the revoke. Was W required to draw attention to his revoke? No. but having done so he commits an infraction if the TD is not called. The example of the 3D IB and then a change of call is exactly analogous. The changing of call draws attention to the IB; and failure to call the TD with regard to the IB is an infraction.

hmmm. we have the best is not synonymous with being able to pass muster. Inclusive of those referenced.

I believe that Robin is on target here with respect to the law. Once the regulation is published for completed CCs, then when the issue is raised it is incumbant on the offenders to come into compliance immediately. Therefore, whatever boards cannot be played in the time allotted [because offenders are completing their CCs] are by law subject to an adjusted score [A+/A-] and a PP [in my book not merely any old PP but 100% for each adj score].

A valid judgment [needed for a ruling] cannot be made before knowing the agreements to all the calls.

I was present during the following events: 1N-P-2H [A]- <asked and replied transfer; asked and replied transfer; 40 second huddle> P- P <director please (immediately)> The TD found that the intention of Dealer was to complete the transfer and that wbf1997L25A did not permit a correction without penalty because no correction had been attempted without pause for thought. I concur with the L25 ruling.

The way to 'discourage communication' is to first call the TD and then wait until he arrives to tell everyone why he is there.

The effect of this 24.8 is to emphasize that PC penalties apply to PCs rather than exposed cards. In the supposed situation exposed cards during the auction period do not become PC until the auction period is over: Re L22B. End of Auction Period 1. The Auction Period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. Thus, the OL is played prior to the creation of PCs.

A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for progress is to change [a] NT to the lowest denomination and change the scoring of NT tricks to 40, minor tricks to 30, and major tricks to 20.

What you have described is an exposed card during the auction period.

Wayne, To have a valid expectation that the rules be followed in the main…… by necessity the rules must be right-headed. The current state of affairs is that the rules are wrong-headed; and if rulings were made in accordance with the rules then most would not show up. The norm is that rulings are not in accordance with the rules with two dominant effects [1] more show up than would be expected and [2] it is the unwritten rules that are 'learned' to the exclusion of the written rules.

When I am in the Groove I will commit upwards of 4 blunders and a dozen major errors during a session. When partner does almost as well I expect to score better than 65%. On a memorable occasion I estimated that my play was flawless [could not be improved upon] which scored 36%. Coincident to that session I was worrying about a myriad of problems. In other words, I was distracted. With those memories in mind I might believe that the effect of your TD caused distraction had everything to do with failure to qualify.

With better particulars of the BIT a more confident judgment might be made as to the available inferences. As such the inferences generally fall into two classes: [1] opener has minimum holdings/ subminimum holdings for a contemplated action such as [a] shorter anchor suit which is stout a flimsey anchor suit [c] it is dangerous to mention a side suit When opener has no problem passing 3S it infers that the previous tempo suggests 3C was aggressive rather than conservative [2] opener sees possibilities for game and is deciding whether to risk a unilateral action when there is no satisfactory systemic action to elicit responder’s opinion- the basis of which could be [a] a long, strong, but broken suit plus stoppers and winners very long but not solid enough suit needing sufficient spade stoppers [c] undisclosable honors and worried about the quality of spade stopper [d] contemplating the risk of penalizing 2S My view is that 3S breaks the connection between the UI and possible damage thereby; reasoned as follows: If the tempo suggested that opener had significant extras then by reopening the auction they would give the opportunity to punish 3S/ improve the contract. Therefore, to reopen risks having your head handed to you. Conversely, reopening implies the tempo suggests the weaker view that opener was contemplating a very aggressive action [weaker hand]. Thus, the UI suggests that 3N is more likely to fare worse than alternatives and as such is not demonstrably suggested.

When reviewing the auction from N’s point of view, when south called 4D he has promised diamond control [as in first round?]. Well, that is a problem. The nature of which becomes evident from the answer of this trick question: What valid reason can N have to commit to 13 tricks when south has denied having first round control of clubs and N does not have first round control of clubs? Answer to trick question: there is the expectation of north that S does have first round control of clubs. Not a trick question: How might N come by such an expectation in this case? Answer to not a trick question: Inferences from variations in south's manner. Rub of the green can exist with 6S- but [once south dithers] cannot exist with 7S.

It’s a dubious undertaking to believe you will choose well without knowing the systems behind all of the calls. With that said, knowing the south cards and what most would like to have to open at the one level, it seems unlikely for N to have the stuff to believe the partnership will have a makeable contact.

If I had written the rules, Anderson would have to repeat his COOT when the auction came around to him <g>.

The footnote refers [is attached to] to a trick currently in progress and says four things about a trick currently in progress: 1. If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; 2. cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, 3. but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, 4. and see Law 57A #1. merely is a subset of a trick currently in progress defined by the condition 'If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress'