axman

A more accurate depiction includes "diamond queen" when speaking of "the only".

You have given the impression you intend to use teaching deals and perhaps that scoring [if any] is merely incidental. Perhaps a barometer would deal with the challenges. Basically, you can run the movement for as long or as short as suits your purposes and whoever is not a half table will play all the boards. As for the ideal of 18 boards boards 19-36 can be duplicated as 1-18 if a duplicating machine is used needing only N/4 sets of [36] boards when the boards are shared

North took his side's card from the board to be played, the auction period for his side has begun. L17A. Subsequently, the DT was exposed- thus during the auction period. North's PC must be played at the first legal opportunityu which in this case is OL. [EW were a bit silly to bid a contractr that 'depended on' preventing the lead f the DT as they had seen the DT al during the auction <g>] Personally, I never liked players that boxed a card while a session was in progress- it seemed that if there was some reason like a late play that the board might be fouled because of it.

Well, TFLB provides no such thing. Using <accepts> wothout qualification** [which is what the law does] emphasizes the recognition of a fact of life, much as Cronkite used '...that's the way it is' and Doris Day used 'Que sera, que sera' Accept changes nothing just as the lack of accept changes nothing.. Where saying accept merely emphasizes that the PC is in force for future tricks without changing its status during the current trick. ** for an example of accept with qualification read L53A Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect....

The law provides no reconciliation of the conflict therefore the TD does not reconcile the conflict. It is noteworthy that the generally accepted procedure when a PC is created is that the TD monitors the play to ensure that the penalty is paid as prescribed. If the TD is successful <sic> that situation would not occur- so to speak.

Logically, the only way for a defender to revoke when he follows suit is when he is under a play penalty obligation to play a different card. Consider S [declarer] leads the C4 whereupon E brings the C2 to the table [as in OOT].whether or not W forthwith faces a card to the table L57A provides that S can name a penalty on the card W plays to the trick after E’s becomes a PC if S requires the lowest club and W plays the CA from CA2, W wins [will win] the trick while revoking. Notably, when the lead is in dummy and dummy plays the C4 and W faces the C2 L57C1 provides that there is no PC against W nor play penalty against : A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if ….. dummy has played a card …. It being arguable [which I believe is valid] that there will be few occasions where the law provides for the original case above since most of the time the condition provided by L57C1 for obviating the conditions provided by L57A. However, there are other play penalties to be considered; For instance defender W has a C7 PC and his partner is on lead where declarer exercises L50D2 lead penalty to lead a club. However, E possessing the C2 instead leads the DA which will win the trick while revoking by not leading a club when able.

Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card… Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card dummy picks up the card… Notice the drawing attention as to what the word which means. It being notable that different passages of law otherwise/additionally provide that dummy's card can be played by the moving of dummy's card without declarer naming it. It is clear that this does not convince you, but it convinces others.

As so far the notion that the value of one’s hand necessarily feeds off the partner’s hand has escaped notice, here are a few thoughts on valuation. For instance, there are a large number that believe that [and I have long since gotten past being amazed at the number that insist] Kxxxx-QJx-KQ-JTx is a sound minimum starting hand for 1S. and such a hand opposite the subject hand [which is evaluated as GF] suggests that GF means ‘not to make’ but ‘to sacrifice’. Even for fuddy-duddies like me that have never opened such a hand 1S, would be quite comfortable opening xxxxx-QJx-AKx-Kx and would expect to go down in 4S opposite the subject hand over 60% of the time [against a part score.] Yet, no one in this thread has considered relevant what the minimum holdings for the opener can be. Imo that hardly is a satisfactory foundation for justice.

This can't be right. Yet, that is the way your leaders made it.

iirc L2 states that the board markings govern. As such, S's assertion of a <mis>understanding is irrelevant.

*= should read 'B2 ' Dear Ed, Your affection for alerts is apparent as well as vigorous endorsement. You have asserted that your purpose here is to help others understand the rules; and as such you have immense influence with a great number. My reason for intervening is that you misspoke upon an important matter and I felt it ought to be corrected. In response you have made numerous dubious assertions where a response was called for. My first response was intended to give the reader first pause for contemplation and then investigation. Giving the reader credit for intelligence I expected him to find that L16 emphasizing that unexpected alerts are an extraneous communication to partner does not preclude expected alerts from being an extraneous communication to partner nor says that expected alerts, et al are AI, but to read on [L73] to verify that they are UI; to realize that alerts are a system of communication. Perhaps the reader would be astute enough to notice that L20 requires players to listen not only for the dog that barks, but also for the dog that didn’t- and thus buttress the notion that s alerts are a system of communication; and, as partner must thereby receive such communication by law, that it thus is clear that it is a type of communication that L73B1 prohibits. And that someone that reads L73B2 realizes it require**s that someone that uses an alert system without being screened from partner is to be immersed in boiling oil- and that it would be a good idea to be informed of it sooner rather than later. Now, I hoped that some curious soul would stumble upon L80B2f and wonder why the law would have a rule that if obeyed would prevent players from contemplating having an alert system, let alone use it. ** euphuism for an incident of cheating of most heinous proportions

The passage of law that you refer to does not preclude other classifications of of alerts from being UI. L73B1 does so specify, and L73B1 asserts the opinion of the effect of alerts.

Contrary to the above assertion, announcements and the lack thereof are a system of communication between partners, which at the least communicates as to what wavelength the partner is [or is not] on.

I am curious as to what inference might be drawn when responder hitched prior to rebidding 3H? I would believe that 3H ought to promise invitational honors, 5+S, 4+H shape with a NT problem.. And under those conditions, I can believe that such a hitch could give the impetus to prefer a poor 4-2 heart contract to a magnificent 5-4 spade contract at the same level.

The underlying idea is to provide [adequately often] more than enough time [yet not way much more] for any of the next three players to contemplate, distinct from just enough time.

The screen shouldn't go down until everyone is ready to start the auction; and failing that, definitely not before everyone is finished with the previous hand.

The desired condition is that the other players cannot discern when you have a problem and when you don’t. as such, players have a duty to ascertain the tempo that they can maintain consistently as well as adopt methods that are conducive to achieving ‘good tempo’. Part of achieving good tempo relies on planning ahead of time for typical contingencies by utilizing dead time effectively [such as not starting the auction until everyone at least appears ready, for instance]. Notably the effect of skipping bidding levels is that for a large proportion of players, at least one that is downstream will have something to seriously reconsider and contriving a break that avoids compromising ethics is a reasonable solution if the players take advantage of it. Other situation are not universally identifiable and therefore do not lend themselves to such a contrivance. Why use 10sec rather than 5sec or some other pause? Well, why are most duplicate games paced for 7 to 7.5 minute boards? Probably because it ‘feels right. In fact there are a substantial number of players that can’t seem to get the job done in less than 30sec let alone ten; and as you hint, players needing much more than 5sec are probably considering things beyond what their agreements tell them- and that does take considerable time. anyway, from my view 10sec seems to strike an adequate balance [i rarely need more than 1sec after a skip]. My experience is that after my 12sec pause [i seek to pause at least 10sec every time] that there is an eagerness to bid rather than dither which they normally would have done without the pause. The reason that I am among the non use of the stop procedure is that it is demeaning. It is intimidation to boss an opponent around when there is no reason to do so. It is to his benefit to pause every time. My god, your opponent must be stupid if you have to tell you skip bid; and why would you demand that he pause unless you thought he was going to cheat if he didn’t. As for they who play the stop card they frequently leave ethics at the door. There’s over 3000 ways to play the stop card/fail to play the stop card . the fact is that the stop card creates more problems than it solves and in short is something that is frequently gotten wrong, yet is totally unnecessary. I don’t need to be bossed around, I pause after every skip without be told to, and I don’t see why any one should be told to; and as stated above I can see why they shouldn’t be bossed around. The procedure that requires looking at one’s cards and appearing to think is just bonkers. Once I sort my hand and make my plan I rarely look at my cards for the rest of the auction. During the pause you should be doing anything different from your ordinary. As for competitive auctions, you should adopt as your normal tempo a pace that you can maintain during competitive auctions.

I am reminded of a recent article by Paul Cronin recounting a story about a player that responded to 1C- he bypassed two 5 card pointy suits to raise to 2C on a stiff Q. The consequence of which being some intriguing declarer play when the opponents won the contract. Certainly he bid it due to his judgment that partner and opponents [raised to 3C] would believe he held 4+ pieces rather than one His cards reflect his judgment given his agreements [and table presence].

I would anticipate a finding that declarer called for the DK and dummy misplayed the D3, declarer eventually losing the trick to the D7. Then declarer played OOT by calling for a card from dummy [which one?]. If the defender had accepted the LOOT by playing a card prior to drawing attention to the fact that his side won the previous trick the previous trick stands. However L45D provides for the case where both sides did not play to a subsequent trick prior to drawing attention to dummy’s incorrect play, whence dummy’s play is corrected and the other side is permitted to alter their plays, and if so declarer can change his plays[?] with L16D implications My other thoughts are unsuitable for XXX rated audiences. 45D. Card Misplayed by Dummy If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16D.)

The cards <sic>, if you will, are evidence of judgment, or lack thereof.

The truth about high frequency bluffing is that there nothing wrong with it when the partnership conducts itself fairly. By fairly it is meant that for one thing both members of the partnership actively strive to maintain good tempo at all times. Which is to say that not very many individuals come close to such a standard let alone partnerships. Even still, I can’t recall an instance in 25 years where I was inclined to call attention to an opponent’s bluff- let alone make an issue of it. And, if I were ever inclined to make an issue of it [as in I felt that UI was used tas a green light that it was safe to bluff, or UI was used to control the bluff] I probably would never seek a ruling because I expect the TDs to mangle it and cause me a lot more grief in terms of distractions on future boards. As you asked for suggestions, here are a few: 1. stay focused, if you are looking for ghosts all the time you are going to find them instead of taking care of business. 2. If you find yourself getting bent out of shape because the opponents used UI unfairly wrt a bluff you had better take stock pretty quick and realize you have just lost the war and if your match was close it soon won’t be if you fail to start obeying rule #1 pronto. 3. If your system has conditional agreements [the meaning of your call depends on the meaning of the opponents’ call, you would be better off if you purged them.

To demonstrate what it is to go down such a road: If I am not mistaken, at the point in time of east’s turn to call the only irregularity [L16B3] that a brief hitch by north could be is an intentional attempt to communicate to south other than by call or play [as in a breach of L73B]. Now, did east accuse N of intentionally planning to communicate other than by call or play? NO!!! and, for good reason, there is too little to go on. That leaves the case where East called the TD to make south squirm. I wouldn’t be surprised to find east hand held three hearts with at most KQJJ, scattered.

This action by the TD is intimidation, and as such is a breach of his duty to be impartial. The TD should have read the part of L16 that says- When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested- and found out just what the alleged infraction was [to demonstrate how difficult it is to do prior to S bidding 3S]; [then] instruct for play to continue and give the instruction to call him back if there is a problem [before agreeing to the score]. Personally, I detest players that can’t resist that little bit extra [read- BIT] as much as the next guy, in fact, more than most- but this stunt by E is intimidation and is sufficient to land him on my personal scumbag list. I think that the TD would do well to help E understand that his premature TD call could well be construed as a tactic to influence the opponents’ bidding via intimidation [threat of scrutiny] and that is the kind of thing that L74 admonishes players to avoid [intimidation].

My understanding of events suggests that 4th hand should call the TD to say that he believes 2nd hand misinformed the opponents. The TD should require that the correction be made; and based on the fact that where 3S actually does not promise any honors while the explanation was that it did, the TD should rule MI. note- that an explanation of better than 4S [which for a different partnership might have been true but was false for this one] is still inadequate without knowing what 4S promises And then ascertain from the opponents if they would do something different [particularly after 3S [privately]. Then cancel the last pass giving dealer the opportunity of doing something different than pass.