axman

Against your admonition I have this compulsion to point out that right headed ideas/good ones do not exist in a vacuum. When nestled against wrong headed ideas the infection rarely never goes in a desirable direction so the good idea turns into a bad one.

I am thinking that there is merit in an admonition against preventing an irregularity yet there is merit in preventing irregularities though I am not decided about it. The important argument being just what does preventing an irregularity entail. I can visualize justifying various behaviors in the name of prevention that could even turn the stomach of the staunchest cheat let alone those of good morals. However the case for permitting dummy to prevent a POOT seems to have better merit than its forbidding (minimize litigation while minimal effect on the fall of the cards) for the reason that it would seem helpful to the other side if it were the opponent preparing to infract while if declarer it likely aids his side only if declarer was about to make a bridge error. Also, I am thinking that the principle that dummy is declarer's agent is right headed and probably is sound enough to carry all the way through: so speaking to the notion that it is right for dummy to choose to stop being an agent of declarer to be his own free agent (and not carry out declarer's instruction to revoke) would break the principle. And for a principle that is a good principle it is a bad thing when breaking the principle is not necessary and - notably in that situation it is not necessary.

M>> I'd love ideas on how it should be handled Improve the law by making PCs a possible remedy for all players- thereby incentivizing avoidance of POOT rather than incentivizing the declaring side to POOT. As for dummy being first to draw attention it should now be clear that when dummy does not complete his warning prior to facing** the card he has drawn attention rather prevent and that warrants a reduction in score to incentivize dummy accurately utilizing judgment as to when he can avoid the penalty. ** the threshold for a played card is its exposure/naming, not its touching the table

Very commendable. Serendipitously last week I returned to considering the terms of electronic tempo management and began outlining the components for an algorithm- including the definition of an individual's normal tempo, its dynamic determination, its effect and interaction on the players, control points, algorithm design, user interface, and the consequences. So far there are nuances that are best considered altogether. I'll return when the outline is reasonably complete and then after a period of matriculation to smooth the rough spots.

I sounds like your interest is in understanding the judgment underlying conventions and their use. I'll suggest Churchill Style of Natural Bidding as a reasonable source. He gets into the underlying principles and how to utilize them. It is his system book and while its conventions are natural, they underlie the principles behind many of the widely use artificial conventions of today. S Garton Churchill was an attorney so he didn't spare his words- which I found to be interesting words. He also won several American titles.

The closest that the law gets to defining equity is L70BCDE the predicate being L70A. The law does not define damage. So your query does not have meaning. Anyway, it would not be incorrect to say that infractions can give the other side a leg up. As for justice...

This is my reason: When a player is misinformed it is akin to improper deception. The damage being that he was influenced to not do what he would have done (distinct from what he might have) or to do what he would not have done. The remedy of do over is an attempt to fight it out at the table on as level as practical playing field. Practically, going back more than one turn disturbs** the playing field beyond repair. In many cases MI is immaterial to one or both players and the TD can inquire both before rolling back to that turn as to what the turns would have been for the purpose of ascertaining damage (should the do over not save the comparison) while minimizing contamination. ** the information from rolling back two turns puts the player with the earlier turn in the position of knowing information from partner that he would not have without the remedy. This imbalance of turns destroys the justice that comes from the practice of alternating turns. Thus, rolling back more than one turn is irreparable.

In the original post the H?6? was played by W. In the edited version the reference was omitted.

I suggest you fix the facts. This situation would not be termed simple. It sounds like there were two revokes.

Many moons ago it occurred to me that if the law were 'if a proper request is made (the answer not being on the CC) all resulting information flow is AI to his side and UI to the other side; but if a request is made when the answer is on the CC all resulting information flow is UI to his side and AI to the other side' there would be two noticeable consequences: 1. players would strive to have good CCs 2. players would strive to read the CC rather than ask questions 3. players would strive to gain advantage when the CC is defective. Well, I did say two consequences didn't I? I gave it a name: Causation Doctrine- the side that causes the burden bears the burden

Well, it seems to me when players are forbidden to have CC it is a sufficient reason to show up somewhere else. That's what I do.

When the director fouls a comparison via his incompetence he owes everybody $40. And, everybody owes me $80 :) some advice. Read the CC at the beginning of the round.

I suspect you have lost track of antecedents. As for the other matter: When a player calls he communicates. When a player varies tempo he communicates. When a player remarks he communicates. When a player plays a card he communicates. When a player drops a card he communicates. When a player acts out of turn he communicates. When a player changes a call he communicates. When a player substitutes a card he communicates. When a player corrects a revoke he communicates. What does a turn do? It communicates. During an auction turns to call alternate. Why? To balance the turns. After the auction alternate sides play a card. Why? To balance the turns. There are PCs. Why? To balance the turns at the earliest practical time. What does UI do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor. What does correcting a revoke do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor. What does changing a call do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor. What does correcting a POOT do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor. What does correcting a BOOT do? It imbalances the turns in favor of the infractor. An after thought. A mPC by any name is an exposed card. When a card is played it is <drum roll> exposed. So there is good reason to not treat mPC and MPC differently- to restore toward the balance of turns in haste.

You opined that that minor pc are logical. While I took issue with that. When a player corrects revoke he retracts a card. And having already playing a card to the trick he substitutes a different card. He has played 2 cards to a trick one of them retracted. That is two turns when everyone else took their ONE allotted turn. Not only have turns been unbalanced unauthorized communication has occurred (that is the effect of unbalanced turns). Supposedly the PC is to return the balance of turns as quickly as possible so that the Unfair advantage lasts as little as possible. An effect of the minor pc is to lengthen the duration of the imbalance of turns. end commentary on laws. begin commentary on your latest opinion. The law specifies that by pulling the C2 in playing to the trick it meets the specifications of major pc. the law specifies that major pcs are compelled to be discharged at first opportunity (rebalances turns). The notion that letting OS take an unfair number of turns is equity is bonkers. The law does not define equity (except by L70BCDE with respect to its usage in L70A). Considering that someone figures that they can get bonkers ideas into to the law with the notion that an accidentally dropped spot means so much less than an intentionally played card is a statement about the condition of the human race. To believe that such a notion is sufficient to declare that unbalancing turns doesn't matter at all gives incentive for players to seek to take those free extra turns that you seem to believe are equitable. All knowledge of the actual distribution can be of critical value to partner and thus it is folly to declare by fiat that it does not matter at all. And that is why minor pc is bonkers.

Some guys have all the fun. My only fun was calling the skip in 3 sections after 9 (plus 6 minutes) instead after 9. What's 54 tables of happy bridge players anyway.

Actually it is illogical. A PC is effectively an extra turn... where requiring it be played at the first opportunity is the attempt to minimize the effect of the extra turn. As such, a minor penalty card still is an extra turn thereby permitting the infractor to take a different extra turn exacerbates the infraction not cure it.

1. when only one pair is scheduled to be at a table (sit out) the board is not scheduled to be compared (no result generated) that round. Factoring is needed. 2. Generally, a scheduled comparison that is fouled (like when players are so slow that the board isn't started or show up late) is remedied by an adjusted score. As fouled comparisons are disruptive/deprive the field of actual comparisons it is proper to devise an appropriate PP to the perpetrator(s). There being a difference between results and the absence of results- as one would expect there are different effects. Notably, when an artificial score is created it is because of a fouled comparison where part of the remedy is called fouled board scoring (this shows up when a top is less than a top and a bottom is more than a zero). Most scoring programs use the neuberg formula for fouled board scoring.

When a board does not have the same number of comparisons it is normalized by factoring so that each board carries the an equivalent weight. The accepted correct procedure is to factor up by the ratio of the largest number of comparisons in the board set to the actual number of comparisons. Notably the ACBL club TD exam (I believe John Wignall would be familiar with NZ views) has two aspiration killing questions. The Factor exercise is/?was? one of them.

But this is two pairs skipping the board?

It depends. If due to a phantom pair the board is factored.

I felt like I was reading tortured language. My impression is that judgement is regulated rather than conventions.

Two observations to chew on. 1. S question was a serious infraction yet the TD was not summoned. The lack of summons infers was that there was no sense of improper communication; or possibly it was sensed that there was improper communication suggesting a D lead and W would not dislike solving his diamond problem at T1 (for all W knows the E clubs may be doubleton). 2. P>> East sees from his phone that all other tables made +1 on a ♥ lead, and calls the Director. The presentation infers that the motivation for a ruling was the scores at the other tables rather than recognizing the inference from the timing of S question. And there are inferences that can be drawn from the timing of summoning the TD: If S question indeed was a communication to lead a diamond, and a diamond was led, it would be known to the declaring side before looking at the scores. This suggests that the improper question did not so communicate, and not having communicated there was no connection to the lead. Ps P>> "North had a natural hearts lead and would not have chosen diamonds without the question by his partner", he argues. Making such claims does not make it so. I am now curious as to the reasoning that it is anti bridge to lead a D; and so clear to led a H.

L43A1. (a) Dummy may not initiate a call for the Director during play unless another player has drawn attention to an irregularity. 25% of top PP to dummy.

about what?

I don't know what you were after but I suspect that it more likely would be achieved by the questions: I told them they had opened a hand as 2NT 20-22 opposite a beginner and the auction proceeded 2N-3D-3H-4H What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H after a one minute pause, given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc And to different pollees What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc