axman

I'll suggest that this H9 business- whatever else it is, it is not a lead.

I should think that your metaphor is a non sequitur. In theory, the player with the option is an adversary of the offender- and is partnered to a non offender with a common interest.

When I was faced with this kind of multi-fill-in problem, where it seemed nicer to complete a walkin half table created by a late player- the route I took to avoid fouling comparisons [when temporary substitutes met boards again] was to get on the phone and find someone to take my chair before the movement fouled the comparisons. I learned my lesson to not allow that much accommodation (:. Your set-up did not afford the time to get a fresh body <sigh>. I suspect what you are after is some principle as how you might deal with the situation where one or more people perform more than one role [play for more than one contestant]. Generally, a player that acts as a temporary surrogate/fill-in and then participates as a [permanent contestant] is only accorded the scores that his ‘contestant’ is credited with. As for fouled comparisons from his ‘temporary subbing’ it would be dubious to accord such contestant the status of ‘not at fault’ when contemplating artificial scores. As for how much of an event [particularly a multi-session event] a missing player does not participate in and still be the contestant is probably best answered by the CoC rather than going through the hard feelings created when special dispensation is given after the fact.

The assertion is false. To wit: The TD arrives and ascertains the relevant facts, the most relevant being that LHO has one of his cards faced on the table. [aside: RHO had committed the infraction of not waiting for declarer to exercise his lead penalty before leading a card- L11 provides that the penalty for that infraction is to not be retroactively assessed. End aside] L49 provides ‘… when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face,… each such card becomes a penalty card’ The TD tells the penalties and from that point forward the penalties for that PC apply.

The law provides one set [L50] of circumstances for returning a card that satisfies the conditions of being a PC to hand without first discharging the associated penalty. The law mandates the condition exist that the card was prematurely exposed. As such, should a 'Director designates otherwise' a card that was not prematurely exposed he does so in defiance of and in contrvention of L81B2.

That gives quite the wrong impression of the law. The law does not provide that the TD have a reason for ruling such a card no longer a PC. The TD either does so, or not- if and only if the card was exposed prematurely. And a TD that has a couple of thousand riding on the outcome of a player satisfies the law when he has that player put the card back in his hand without additional penalty. As for this case, was the card prematurely exposed? No, it was exposed at the player's turn to play, and not before; whereby the law otherwise makes no provision for returning the card to hand prior to discharge of penalty.

1. W has suggested EW will take 13 tricks [i think I can count 13 tricks". ]. That constitutes a claim (of 13 tricks by W). 2. S has suggested that play be curtailed [can't you claim?". ]. That constitutes a claim (of zero tricks by S).

<attempting to be helpful- in English when using a pronoun [such as THIS] it us important to provide a clear antecedent. An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers. In this case your antecedent for THIS is ‘the defender had the exposed card as a PC’. End attempt> The effect of your assertion is that L11 calls for the defender forfeiting the remedy of correcting his revoke. As such the revoke trick is converted to a defective trick as it does not contain the revoke card. Anyway, for someone who now attempts to read L11 it is likely that he will find himself scratching his head.

Even though it is irrelevent, it may well have been to declarer's advantage that the void would not yet have been proven immediately to the defenders [as might have occurred had declarer exercised his option]. Anyway, it is my understanding that a defender has an exposed card under his own will and declarer has not exercised any option he might have had. I should believe that the law provides that such card is to be ruled a PC subject to prescribed penalties- and that is that. As for declarer forfeiting the [future] benefits from that PC I am unaware of any justification for so ruling.

This suggestion is somewhat dubuious. In my early days I had a partner that stated that the event would start at least a half hour after scheduled and thus insisted we would not be leaving until game time for the 30 minute trip to the playing area. On one occasion where the policy was to accomodate late players an event at a major tournament was delayed twenty times for what turned out to be 3 hours. The moral is that they who are habitually 5 minutes late will become habitually 5 minutes early the occasion that the game starts on time, and without them.

It takes somewhat more than 33000 words.

I think that windows has a program called: %SystemRoot%\system32\charmap.exe You might look there.

As declarer has mastery of two hands he has immense power to manipulate the defenders- it additionally is possible to do so unfairly. I should think that if declarer has the expectation that his score will be reduced [PP] every time that he LOOT [from hand or dummy] he will be motivated to not POOT intentionally. This can orchestrated by automatically pipping his score every time the lead is not condoned as legal. As 'unforgiving' as such a policy could appear to some a small pip for the infrequent perpetrator and a large pip for the conventient perpetrator goes toward solving the consequences of 'doing nothing'- by meting out the justice of avoiding the crime all together; and failing that making it likely that the crime will be remedied [defenders are motivated to collect such automatic penalties should they arise; and thus not be duped].

I should think that the provisions of L57A come to bear.

Your premise seems doubtful, if not dubious. This came up in a discussion with BW [bobby wolff] about 15 years ago. He indicated that the motivation for the ban was that such a method is prone to failure, such as upon the occasions when no suitable [systemic] card is held...thereby invariably the player will be unable to conduct himself fairly.

Perhaps this is not particularly helpful, in ST the entire team putatively starts at its home table and the EW pair 'moves' to its opponents' table. PCoP include the proper board for the contestants is active and in proper orientation.. It ought to include ascertaining the correct contestants are present [implied by proper board] and the table being clear of clutter

The ones that I identify with are the schmucks that get drawn and quartered because they answered some frivolous question.

It seems rather straight forward to give the CC a once over at the beginning of the round. It also seems prudent to keep it in your lap so that you can give it a glance when you need it.

To be consultation I do not think that S necessarily needs to ask overtly for it. N's action conveyed his opinion, opinion being the core of consultation; The undoing of N's action does not undo N's expression of opinion, nor S's reception of it.

Some time ago I was approached as a consultant reputedly in the form of a poll. I say reputedly because in actuality I was ushered into a meeting to find myself to be a member of an AC. Apparently there was some UI issue during the auction- and I then set about establishing what the agreements were to the entirety of the auction and its surrounds. Matters escalated to the point that one of the litigants stormed out. It is my contention that the litigant saw that it was obvious that once those facts were established that it would be clear that his position was a fatuous one [without merit]. Why relate this anecdote? There has been a rush to give conclusions without even considering which of the several hundred versions of strong club was at play. I think that it is dubious to come to conclusions without such facts. I will point out that it seems that so far it is likely that the capacity of the NS cards has been exceeded; while it is not clear if the capacity of the EW cards has yet been exceeded given the point of view that the prospects are great that suits are breaking badly and everything depends largely upon Ws shape and the location of his honors. I think that E has the expectation of 4+ defensive tricks at Cs and W has 1.5+. what clouds any further analysis is that lack of NS being forthcoming as to its agreements as to ranges of strength for the ranges of distributions promised for 3C; as well as the conventional nature of Ns pass [i say conventional because by the nature of their convention it [implicitly] must necessarily convey some message, even if NS were negligent in not knowing what it is prior to adopting it].

Meaning that actually the agreement is that X= 5-7hcp plus at least one suit [other than clubs] of a minimum of five long, and if it is only five long it is a respectable suit as distinguished from a disrepectable suit? I wouldn't be caught dead with that kind of rot.

There was a case where a player claimed he had been concerned about one of his idiosyncracies. He consulted an authority.... and practiced his advice. It was some years later that a different authority disagreed to the extent that he was kicked out.

I think that the proper approach is that such penalties are not imposed retroactively, but going forward [when in accordance with law]. The primary issue being such case where a card that could have been a PC in fact has been picked up without a ruling, and the picking up was not challenged by the other side before playing a card subsequent; in that situation I should think the right approach is that the NOS has forfeited such a remedy.

I seem to have some recollection that there is a provision of law that it is a breach of propriety to detach a card [with the intention of] not playing it forthwith.

It's all well and nice that you present a puzzle to be solved. But it does not compute that E has played 14 cards to twelve tricks.