axman

It seems a bit out of place to be talking about adjusted scores when there is as of yet no valid ruling upon which to base one.

Linguistically I may well consider such a reason to be "a bridge reason"; however, with regard to avoiding the consequences of improper deception it would "not be a valid bridge reason". How to better put it? When 'the deciding whether to falsecard' is done within the unvarying normal tempo [should the player have such a history**] there would be no such evidence of improper deception from unsteady tempo, would there? ** on the whole players are trained to not normally have unvarying tempo- as by admonitions such as bridge is a thinking game and I can think when I want; so, for a player to normally have unvarying tempo is an abnormality in spite of the pressure from his surroundings to have unsteady tempo

One of the disturbing things I find is the abuse of players that arises from law writers that are too lazy to construct good law such as that which balances a prescribed remedy to a particular crime. It is little comfort to the pure in heart to be punished as if a cheat merely because someone else claims they ‘could have known’. As I said, the law should be constructed such that by turning the crank on the irregularity there should be no need for the ‘could have known’. For instance, imagine that E was dealer in the subject case and turning the crank on a properly constructed law: The TD finds that S had done nothing during the auction period except take his cards from the board. Ruling: the extraneous bidding card does not constitute part of this auction and is removed. An assertion that W COOT? Ruling: N’s call condoned the putative COOT without penalty and the auction proceeds. If E passes then [there being four consecutive passes, the last being in rotation] the auction is scored as a PassOut. Commentary- E could have called for a ruling on S’s ostensibly OOT bidding card and did not. Having acted he has no expectation for redress arising from his own such misunderstanding. N & S removed their hands from the board prior to S clearing his previous bidding cards. They have no expectation for redress arising from their own such misunderstanding. Further commentary- N had the opportunity to penalize W’s putative COOT [ostensibly because of his own misunderstanding arising from his partner’s irregularity] thereby giving S his opportunity to call- but instead, condoned it.

One of the disturbing things I find is the abuse of players that arises from law writers that are too lazy to construct good law such as that which balances a prescribed remedy to a particular crime. It is little comfort to the pure in heart to be punished as if a cheat merely because someone else claims they ‘could have known’ and that the law writers are unwilling to distinguish the innocents from the guilty.

I can say that the story presented by NS is believable to me as I have seen similar lines of play well over a hundred times. However, merely because it is believable does not mean it is so. A reason for being skeptical is that I have tens of thousands of occasions where players said that such and such was the line of play but it wasn't. I should think that the admonition about it being dubious to assert a revoke [or that there was no revoke] after one has prematurely mixed his cards has to do with the possibility that peoples' memories can be faulty/ conveniently faulty. For the case at hand I would not be surprised if N did not face T13; and as EW's testimony does not preclude N's T13 card from being a diamond it is possible that N's T13 card was [for instance] a diamond; and thus the line of actual play need not neccessarily have included a revoke by EW- irrespective of what the balance of probabilities [or whatever standard of proof] says. One of the things that I find very striking about the NS story. I find it odd that a supposed fifth round of diamonds did not immediately send alarm bells ringing for anybody that can count to 14; but I can see how there would be no alarm bells for someone that played the CK to T12 when he had a diamond.

The bolded assertion is dubious and grossly negligent; as, to otherwise have validity there are necessarily one or more additional conditions- such as he held no other card of such suit; he was required by law to play precisely that card and didn't..... 1. mixing the cards- the only way to verify a revoke or its absence is to recreate the play of the entire hand perfectly with the agreement of both sides. I think that this is one of the few valid ways to a finding of a verified revoke; it being acceptable that both sides concur to a revoke's existence without necessarily swearing to the exact play of the cards. In this case, as both sides cannot concur to the play of all 13 tricks I am unwilling to accept someone's assertion that there in fact was such a revoke without being able to judge from the total evidence myself. The reason in part being that strange things could well in fact have happened during those tricks lacking concurrence. I say this because I have seen strange things happen hundreds and thousands of times when no one as much as as believed something strange happened [at least until it was pointed out]. 2. As for opening pandora's box with such an out of date accusation [my motivation for speaking up]: I point out that much of a competition comes down to focus and forcing an opponent to spend his energy to be prepared to defend himself against something that may well have not happened- because he might be accused at any time- is a distraction from focus. I, for one erase the hand once it is over and it takes an immense exertion to attempt to resurrect it later. So, to put the opponents to the distraction of generating facts necessary for a L64C ruling only in the end for the facts to not be certain/sufficient enough with which to produce a proper L64C ruling seems to be bad form to me. Well, yes the opponents will perform badly for the remainder so I guess that is something.

It is the opposite that is true. An example being a game in Canada that was on its dying gasp because the rules were not applied as written; when a player was asked to run that game he agreed on the condition he would run it in accordance with the rules. In spite of protracted resistance the players agreed. Inside of a year the club wasn't merely growing robustly- it was thriving- and other clubs undertook the same policy. Now, the real problem with not conducting things according to the rules [which is similar to enforcing bad rules] is that the very people that are the substance of the well being of the group [in terms of skill and fair play] are the ones that stay away while it is the ruffians that remain.

By law the first call is made by dealer [L17A] and dealer’s partner made the first call. That call was OOT. Dealer’s partner is an offender [A] of L17A By law the second call is made by dealer’s LHO [L17B] and dealer made the second call. That call was OOT. Dealer is an offender of L17B. A and B are offending at the same time. In the case L29 provides that [L29A] the offender’s LHO, if he now calls then the COOT is considered in rotation. As N and S are an LHO of an offender then should either of them call then both OOT passes are considered in rotation; otherwise, if neither of N or S do not call the COOT [as in- both passes] is canceled and the auction [subject to L30A] reverts to dealer [and be aware of L23].

You. LAW 49 - ... when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); LAW 50D.1. (a) A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping. If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer designates which is to be played.

After getting a ruling that the AQ are PCs I play the K and require the Q played under it.

Me, I'll win the K.

The provision has not been removed. My recollection includes Stevenson, Burn, and Probst.

It is slang, probably american, for rumor/gossip. It was used a lot in military pictures, particularly from the forties and fifties. As I recollect, the occasion happened around the seventh round when my opponent mentioned that a pair of boards from 'last night' were in play. It sounded like he had heard it from someone else- hence- scuttlebutt.

On one memorable occasion scuttlebutt came to my attention that a pair of boards in my section were the same as the previous session [had not been duplicated for this session]. At the end of the round I approached the TD to so inform him that there was a pair of previously played boards. When he refused to correct the fouling I raised cain- and he still refused to correct the fouling. What is curious is that I didn't recognize the hands, but did pick up a couple of tricks on each board the second time around. As for the pragmatic thing, sometimes it takes getting riled to create the attitude of the value of getting it right the first time; and a necessary precondition is a fastidious application of the rules.

It is my understanding that such 'communication' is, to the contrary, enshrined in the law as L68B authorizes the partner to object and when it is done immediately play proceeds without hindrence of a concession. This state of affairs has existed for many decades with the WBFLC knowing full well the L73B2 ramifications described in this thread. Actually, I experienced the events of this thread some ten years ago when I was called to settle a claim of improper deception: The play was without trump and Dummy [N] held CAKJ. S led Cx and W put his cards in the board and E objected immediately knowing full well E could never win a trick [holding all hearts]. I ruled that play continue as prescribed by L68B. W indeed held CQxx where the CQ took T13. The assertion was then made that given the action of W, that the only valid reason for the objection of E was that E must hold the CQ, and since in fact E knew she could not win any trick, that E's objection was improper deception causing the damage of luring declarer to play E for the CQ [as by not considering finessing W]. I ruled that the table result be recorded subject to my consulting on the claim of improper deception. The outcome of the consultation was that there was absolutely no basis for the claim of improper deception.

L90 provides for the assessment of PPs for irregularities. By assessing PPs for irregularities such as this, players are encouraged to not infract, as well as players are encouraged to be vigilant to collect such PPs thereby avoiding such whining [not to mention the assessment of PPs].

Contemplate the following: A defender commits irregularity X. Query: is dummy, by law, prohibited from drawing first attention to irregularity X? I should think the law does so prohibit. Query: dummy draws attention to irregularity X- what is the effect? A PP [43A1B1], additionally, the TD remedies X [81C3] Query: prior to irregularity X the defender committed irregularity C, whereby irregularity X draws attention to irregularity C; given that dummy is prohibited from drawing attention irregularity X (while the prohibition against summoning the TD for irregularity C has become null) does dummy infract by summoning the TD because it whatever else it does it draws attention to X?

Having given some thought towards the effect of withdrawing the club I came to the following conclusion: the withdrawal of the club occasions two effects [1] it draws attention to an irregularity [which will be discovered to be a revoke] as the card having been played remains faced until quitted and [2] the withdrawal of the club is its own irregularity The disentagling of [1] and [2] is a curiosity; as well as the effect of dummy calling the TD (attention having been drawn to an irregularity by its perpetrator).

The premise of an adjusted score operates upon "the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law". Which notably does not rely upon "if NOS was actually damaged by the revoke". To wit, the law places no** boundaries as to what constitutes "insufficiently compensated". So, to attempt to describe boundaries- say a pair [in fact] was not damaged, where the TD deems*** that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law- then this law provides an adjusted score. Also, say a pair [in fact] was damaged, where the TD deems*** that the non-offending side is sufficiently compensated by this Law- then this law does noy provide an adjusted score. ** Actually, the law provides some boundaries, but as they are not complete boundaries [there being a gaping hole] in the strictest sense they are not boundaries *** It is notable [in the strictest sense] that such deeming need not be grounded in fact [as the example illustrates]

please quote the interpretation. thanks

where are the other three cards that belong to the trick to which the H9 was <supposedly [sic]> led? Well, there were none because there was no trick to be led to if there was a trick to be led to, then it would be legal for one of the four players to lead.

As the "the H9 can not be a lead under the conditions specified" the assertion is false. To be a lead there must first be a bid followed by 3 consecutive passes [which hasd not yet happened]: 41A. Face-down Opening Lead After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down The law goes to some effort to define lead: Lead — the first card played to a trick. and then trick: Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead. FUrther the law seems to say that once the lead is made then there can be no more bidding: 41C. Opening Lead Faced Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably.... As such, if the H9 is a lead then the contract is 1N. It thus would follow that if one were to argue that the contract is [or might become] other than 1N as by further bidding one must first assert that the H9 was not a lead.

24B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Prematurely Led If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when a pass damages the non-offending side). The law specifies 'any card prematurely led' as a necessary condition for imposing the enforced pass. the H9 had not been led- it had been exposed under conditions that preclude calling it a lead.

Please quote chapter and verse, I am unable to locate such a passage.