axman

It is notable that the provisions of L17D are in direct conflict with the provisions of L21A. For the conditions cited, L17D requires the rectification of cancelling whatever calls the player made while misunderstanding that the hand he was holding was the wrong hand. From L21A: No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

It is notable that the provisions of L17D are in direct conflict with the provisions of L21A.

How about the prospect that 5C is too high? -500 would be only down three [five defensive tricks] and N has yet to promise a single honor and W has promised club honors.

Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks.

In NA the law is utilized by a large number as a battle ax to wage war against one's enemies- merely an observation, mind you. I am inclined to believe that such is not aligned with the proper function; also, that it suggests evidence that the law was, itself, misconceived. One more comment, it would appear that you hold that E has committed some atrocity and must be banned, yet you have not explained what the atrocity was...at least then maybe E could be in the position of giving a valid defense.

It is my understanding that the law provides that when a eupemism for small is used that it designates rank. L46B3a provides that when rank is designated but not suit is not named then the suit of the last trick is thereby designated. As such we mortals are not yet in a position to speak definitively on the matter.

It is noteworthy that the EW cards are likely** to land in and make 6S,6N,6C,7C,6D,7D. It is further noteworthy that the actual outcome, 6C, is the lowest of likely** outcomes... which ought to render further antagonism toothless. ** I think that it is absurd to believe that E will blow off the 4level [4H] without planning on insisting upon a slam investigation.

imo, if a player strives to not change his action when it was the intended one [as in not inadvertent] he more likely will be correcting only inadvertent actions. Not, that when he claims to correct it necessarily will would be so- but that it would be in the right direction. My point being that requiring TDs to mind read to rule upon something so nebulous and fleeting as inadvertency, is much worse than treading a slippery slope with little upside, it's running full speed in a bobsled; and the only person qualified to read Nancy's read mind is Nancy. The way to use inadvertency is advice to players to use as an ethics litmus test rather than something to rule upon by TDs.

It's possible there is someone that is available immediately to fill in. And there is the possibility that someone [pair] can be called in- even if it takes 30-40 minutes. You may lose some comparisons, but players appreciate playing boards rather than twiddling their thumbs. Most computers will factor automatically.

My arithmetic must be off. If 4SE goes down 3 & 4 tricks, I would think that he has a 6.5 playing trick hand.

Once it is accepted that N would not bid slam if he believed the partnership was off 2KC [while maybe bid slam off one] then once N bids slam then from S view [that the agreement was DOPE] he should** think that N believes South holds at least 2KC [as in S doesn't hold zero]. As such, it is not valid for S to assert that S has reason to KNOW some wheel has lost traction. ** S, looking at 2KC + CQ necessarily knows that N can hold at most 3KC

Given that it is the first round and there is but one section the TD should have shuffled #21 while you were playing #22, recorded the board to revise the internet hand record and hopefully you would be able [you only lost one minute] to play #21 within the first round. revision**: Given that an ACBLwide game is a multisection event, the TD haas fouled the board by bringing you to the table prior to picking up the bidding cards. This makes the board unplayable/unrecoverable and requires an artificial score. There is no methodology for substituing some other board [because there would be no comparisons it would still have an art score]. Apparently, the TD additionally fouled the comparisons unneccessarily of Greenberg and Radin. **Apologies, I'd forgotten about ACBLwide. I might have surmised that the TD had started a fill-in pair except that they would have been seated when the TD brought you to T#11.

By my reckoning your team lost 15imps; and the other team lost 10 imp not including the PP that should have been assessed. ps. Does Australia still not provide for a 10s non tempo sensitive skip bid pause?

The gentleman asked for advice concerning HIS set of circumstances, but did not state all of his circumstances coherently. If you answer some differnet question instead of HIS question he has not succeeded in getting good advice and may become most displeased if he acts upon it when his circumstances recur next year. It could well be that there were errors such as additional TD errors that cannot be evaluated when facts are missing/ doubtful. Anyway, one would think that Judi Radin would opt for a game run by a better TD.

I know that it is difficult to write complicated things in a language that is not your native language- but in this case precise details and precise order of events are important. You have used some phrases that do not mean much in America without explanation. If you could talk to others that were there including the TD and have them review what you rewrite there is some hope that your mess can be sorted out. An important note. It sounds like you never played #21 all the way, or even part of the way [as in somebody else started it and you came in the middle]. One thing you definitely should do is have the TD explain everything that happened. You were entitled to a timely explantion and you ought to let the TD know that you expect it in the future.Understanding this correctly is probably important..

Imo the act of playing god [read- the request to waive penalties] is counter productive. For one reason it is an act of intimidation** [irrespective of any intended kindness]. This is because it imply ‘a dare’ to call the TD on some future irregularity- as in, it can motivate the OS to reciprocate [because they believe there is the expectation o].reciprocity. **by offering to waive the player is put in the position of refusing to accept generosity or not, but either way there is a debt to be repaid for accepting the gift or for having the gift offered; whether the debt is real or just imagined, it persists even after it is ‘repaid’ However, if you are hell bent upon it…imo, the only respectable technic for waiving penalties is to never [as in forever] draw attention to the irregularity. To give a real life example look at [i believe] the 99 USTT. iirc there had been a revoke that wasn’t penalized. Then later in the match the other side played two cards to a trick which was penalized- the PC shifting a couple of tricks and a boat load of imps. This evidently hurt someone’s feelings because they felt entitled to reciprocation for letting the revoke penalty slide. It is my understanding that WW3 erupted and a lot of players were flogged as a consequence. All things considered. waive penalties at the risk of winning friends and influencing people.

Rubbish. All of it. The purpose of an enforced pass is to avoid placing (immediately) a player with UI in the position of possibly be called a cheat, or, thinking he must do something idiotic to avoid being called a cheat**. ** cheat= someone with UI that appears to have made use of it Additionally, an enforced pass affords the other side maximum elbow room [prevents being preempted] to get their bidding should they choose to. Now. In this case the player [W] without UI is assessed an enforced pass while E, the player with UI is told to use as he wishes the of UI that partner must pass. Notice that the NOS is not given the advantage of using UI as they please. Further, the OS has a severe unbalance of turns having taken three turns [POOT, knowledge of the enforced pass, and E’s call before the NOS taken a single turn.

I concur with the last sentence as it is what the law provides. However, it is notable that the law is designed so as to damage/disadvantage the NOS in this case.

When ruling the TD should a. investigate b. state his finding of facts that are not disputed c. state each side’s view of facts that are disputed and his reasoning for his finding of fact d. state the law that is applicanle e. state his reasoning for his ruling going through this painful process will mostly have the following effects: a. TD make rulings that are supported by the facts and in accordance with law because it is obvious to do so b. The players can readily see that the ruling is a good one or why it is a bad one c. The players will be in a position to make appropriate choices concerning the ruling d. Mostly good rulings means fewer appeals, and more righteous appeals [know which issues to pursue] for when they are made And appeals ought to be handled in much the same way.. nevertheless, the likelihood of satisfactory outcomes would tend to be undependable iwhen the laws themselves are barmy. To wit- in your case I see no reason given why your opponents thought they had been cheated [reason for calling the TD] nor why the TD disagreed; nor any reason why you disagreed with the opponents. Which is to say that- how can you be expected to satisfactorily defend yourself in your opponents’ appeal if the TD did not explain the reasoning of his ruling?

a Lamfordian construction is necessary [here are some data points-] I would say that there have been about 1000 occasions where I discerned the cards had not been mixed. On some of those occasions [about 40] I was particularly bored I played a little game of 'what happened'. Most of the time I discerned the denonination, half I discerned the level, somewhat less than half I discerned the direction, and about one third I discerned the number of tricks taken. Rather scary. The last occasion [2008] was notable being that I discerned the contract to be 4S my direction making 9 tricks- where I stopped in 3S, crashed the KQ on the first round of a side suit to take 10 tricks. In practice, the opportunities are not frequent enough to work at it constantly, and I don't care to consume so much brain matter doing it because all other aspects would go to hell. But that's my view.

Much noise signifying ……….???? That I am a lousy judge? When judging damage the necessary point of reference is founded upon the agreements of the parties. I read no report that E asserted a reason he would pass. You seem to believe that he does not need to do so. And I say that it is impossible to arrive sensibly at a judgment without some statement by east against with to make judgment. You say that it is obvious that E will take three C tricks because ‘south won’t have enough trumps to kill the losers. Well, given that D outranks C, would not 5C also give S the ability to make a preference without going to the six level? In other words 5C would be the call for a minor two suiter with long clubs [more than 4] while 4N would promise 4- in which case either n or S would soon be void of clubs making mute the assertion that S would run out of trumps. Now, does 4N being a minor two suiter seem somewhat absurd? Probably. But E has made a life and death action based on that premise-, so he claims- and having given a dubious assertion that a minor two suiter makes defensive club tricks a certainty- then fails to elucidate why ‘general take out’ is different. What is apparent to me is that the EW system is based upon the partners not knowing what the other has. Otherwise W would have passed 3S and probably defended 4D for a maximum score. But because of his system he judged to force the opponents to go right and his partner to go wrong.- and with that they get lots of action and lots of pain..

I'll offer a couple of comments [a] I find nothing in E's protest describing any reeason why there is a difference causing a X after the MI while no X after a correct description and it seems to me that the reason for the X had everything to do with W freely bidding game after pard's 3S preempt and not much [if anything] to do with the explanation of 4N

Doesn’t this assume as fact that which is not in evidence? 'there is one trump out,' 'and two out,' 'and two out '- ...as in who asserted there were two out....? What I mean is that when claimer asserts that E has the CAKQ while we may not know what he would do about it at least we know whether he is right or wrong. The point being that if he says nothing then we know nothing. Is it really the right thing to do to act as though [claimer knows] there is but one trump outstanding when in fact there is exactly one trump outstanding yet claimer asserts nothing about it?

Failing to heavily penalize E is extreme. whatever E's motivation to comingle cards this incident amplifies the reason for wanting to instill in all players the desire to care enough to not do it.

Nothing should be done without adequate facts. imo, of prime importance is avoiding blowback- shall we say doing something that might taint [in any of many different ways] the comparison of one or more boards. For a lack of a better term I call it dealing with third party interference. For instance, we are not told if the accused took cards from a particular board, got out of his cair to see a board in play, whether it was possible that the accuser could be mistaken as to the particulrs of what she saw, or be a calculated lie. An investigation into such things invariably is a delicate and sensitive matter- and should be something that the director has given some thought to during his training.