axman

The CoC is necessary. If the board can be played as is- there is no need for doing anything except correcting the hand record. Otherwise there are fouled comparisons to deal with.

Actually, the law is not quite clear. For instance, the matter about should. The bridge definition of should rather than being amongst where you expect defintions to be is in a place you expect players to avoid reading. As such, the law becomes clear on the matter at the point when one knows that there is something that needs straightened out and where to look. As a case in point, the first 30 odd times I read TFLB cover to cover- I skipped the intro.

I am the world's worst guesser. Ive been proven to be a lousy mind reader. I have no inclination to read the minds of they that do the things of imbeciles.

Please demmonstrate by a realistic example.

At the time S exposed his card N had not called and thus the auction was not over, andsupposed isnnot over until that 3rd pass in rotation has actually been made. Presumably N has taken the position that he did not call and has done nothing that might be construed to be a call such as entering 2S as the contract by E [in the bridgemate]. The peculiarity that N had not yet inspected his cards is de facto conclusive that N had not called in this instance.

As there is no contract to lead to, the exposed card is not yet [until there is a contract] a lead. For all that is known, S may well be<come> declarer.

While S may well have believed he was leading, as the auction is not over I believe that the card has the status of an exposed card rather than a card led. And at such a point it is not yet known whether L24 provides that N must pass.

The specifications of L22A2 not having been satisfied the auction is still in progress. L24 provides the procedure for dealing with the exposed card.

Let no lack of antecedent be left unturned. I was reciting law that someone else wrote [ foolishly, imo]. As for your discourse, the law specifies that the card must be played, it does not specifiy by whom. Certainly the law provides [except for dummy's partner] no player is permitted to touch another's cards so, as you say, I should think such other player holding the card must play [ostensibly OOT] the card. I'm at a loss for the case where the card had previously been played.

Nigel, The criteria of intent wrt to bridge law is best incorporated as guidance so that players might know where a breach of propriety occurs. For instance, L25A. a player intending to call X at the time he did call knows by his intent that X was not inadvertent- even though he has misgivings about it; thus he thereby knows that it is a breach of propriety to even consider attempting to exchange X for Y. In other words, where the law invokes ‘inadvertent’ it is [as in it ought to be] speaking to the player’s sense of propriety rather than an instruction to the TD for a ruling. Why? It is a horrible thing to rule based upon mind reading- the last known person to have proficiency of such being Solomon. Which means that it is a good idea for the law to provide wisely, the specification for measuring the recognition of irregularities- such as correct a call without pause [rather than correct a call without pause for thought]. As for the place of PP and DP. What you have written doesn’t say anything meaningful; without elaboration it is akin to babbling without purpose. The appropriate place of PP and DP is to take into account the severity of the past offense, and to instill an evangelical desire to avoid offenses in the future. Granted, as employed many [most] PP and DP are issued for the purpose of ‘making right’ a perceived wrong perpetrated by applying the law. But, certainly, the best and most expeditious way to get wrong-headed law corrected is to apply consistently exactly as written. People are fallible. Every procedure in some way distracts players from the task of skillful play and therefore it is ill conceived for law to place burdens unnecessarily upon players and it is the place of lawmakers to invoke the wisdom of Solomon in making the distinction between the necessary and the unnecessary [and likewise to ascertain penalties and remedies that balance the scales of all sides] so that mortals do not need to be Solomon.

THere are two provisions of law that apply: L45C4. (a) A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. Dummy has designated [while illegal to do so, he has done so] the SK as if he proposed to play it. It must be played. L45D. 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.) Declarer did not name the card and attention was drawn before both sides played to the next trick. The SK must be withdrawn, and 3rd hand may withdraw his SA. L16D ramifications exist. Logically, 45C4a provisisons are enforced first and then 45D is enforced. Dummy has earned a PP.

I’ll point out that the function of a remark is to draw attention to. It follows that something, whatever else it is, that performs the function of a remark is synonymous with the properties of a remark. As for a question being a remark. Its primary function is to elicit information. Ancillary to its primary function, it draws attention. In other words being one does not in and of itself exclude it from being also something else [so to speak]. To be insistent, a question, being whatever it is, includes being a remark.

It is quite normal to presume that cards situated in an unorganized order have been mixed when they wewe not- as you stated above. I was pointing out that while not necessarily consistently, from time to time it is possible to discern cards that were not mixed- and yes, from which accuraate inferences could be derived that might be used materially- but not necessarily without peril.

Speaking to the validity of the assertion that an unsorted hand contains ‘too much’ information to be useful I will recount my personal experience: When I am particularly bored, on some occasions [which number around 1-2 dozen a year] I will pick up a hand that I discern had not been mixed [as in the cards were in the order played] and before the auction I will readily [without much effort] discern the contract, the declarer, and the number of tricks taken [sometimes a range of tricks]. My success rate is well north of 75%. I’ll augment the above anticipating the query, ‘then, why don’t you always do it?’ because it requires so much headwork to analyze every hand for ‘order of play’ before even considering what the order of the cards means that it would detract from the ability to play skillfully. The effect is particularly evident when compared to the times ‘when I just see it as if looking at a road map’. I didn’t present the above as an argument for sorting cards [sorting cards is effectively a pointless vocation that consumes an immense amount of time and frequently is gotten wrong- two things that are immensely detrimental to the passions of bridge players].

There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke when both sides have revoked on the same board. Have both sides revoked on the same board? Yes. Therefore, no established revokes during the board have penalty tricks of 64A.

To understand [in part] the effect of law consider the following: At T2 W revokes and corrects before it is established; and N [dummy] revokes and corrects before it is established. Then at T3 E revokes and it is established. L64B7 provides that there are no penalty tricks for established revokes during this board.

I should think that this is something that you must avoid doing before the end of play [or at least prior to you declaring???]. Here you have info???/inferences not available to the others and to call the TD now creates inferences for the others. imo calling the TD immediately will trash the hand.

It would seem to me that it is a very good idea for the declaring side to recount the agreements to their bidding prior to the OL.

After reading 9/42/43 42B gives dummy permission via 9A3 to attempt to prevent an irregularity so long as the limitations of L43 are not breached. L42 lists rights but does not state that are the all inclusive list and even suggests that it is not an all inclusive list. It may well be impossible for dummy to thus prevent an irregularity by a defender, thus making it mute; and as my head doesn't want to contemplate figuring out such permutations I guess that it won't.

Off the top of my head I would fail the person that constructed the exam. As in, when the TD responds he should ascertain the facts such as the purpose of the call and those facts were not given; and supposedly [i don’t assume, I find out] the reason for the call was that W felt he had been improperly deceived. The [first] point being what claim W was making [what inference justified him ducking the Q- for instance]? Then, once the TD knows what damage is claimed he is in a position to ascertain the validity of the claim. The [second] failing point consists of the supplied answer being grossly incomplete: because saying that S had a valid bridge reason to pause does not in itself make it so and the players are entitled to know upon what they have been judged. In other words the valid bridge reason needs to be supplied so that it can be scrutinized for its validity. In this way the players are in a position to judge accurately the soundness of the ruling and should they judge it unsound they can know upon what basis to appeal.

Given what you have provided, the pause is unethical. You had the opportunity to do your thinking in a non tempo sensitive way and you did not. The reason you gave for the pause was that you considered [in the eleventh hour] the need to retain a C entry to your hand and to do that it was necessary to then play the CA. This is not a valid bridge reason because for that purpose it is self evident that any club would do as there were four clubs in dummy. There well might be a valid bridge reason for considering whether to win the ace or not- but that is not the reason you had. And that is the difference; because in that case you could well know that under those circumstances the only reason for the pause was to improperly deceive one or both defenders into inferring that you don’t hold the CK. As mentioned, there may be a reason that is valid, and if an issue is made about a possible breach of L73 then that reason is sufficient defense [but perhaps not a morally right one]. But, of course, if you do not provide the valid reason with alacrity the veracity of any claim you do make would probably appear to be tainted- because in large part it is tainted. As to what to do once you’ve passed the point of no return it should include doing nothing that could aggravate the situation and to sit tight until the end of the hand and hope that the opponents were not disadvantaged,

My understanding of language leads me to parse: L50D1 (b) The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play restriction, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity. as 'when pard has a MPC then the lead restrictions takes precedence over PC play restrictions'

Alex, Not all things happen by logic. Some years ago at unfavorable pard opened 1N and next hand spent two minutes squirming before he passed. It took about 30 sec for me to decide that he had a good hand with spades and by the time 90 secs had passed I was mad enough to do something about it. I responded 2H in normal tempo [1/4 sec]. and then LHO went into a dither for quite some time before he passed. Pard passed routinely and after another production so did RHO. At which I called the TD- to report the failure to alert [transfer to spades]. Well, RHO finally decided** he was damaged so he eventually doubled and LHO finally decided to sit for it. The point is that partner had no inkling from me to pass 2H, but I can see how the theatrics of the opponents could have been a distraction. Strange things do not ‘always’ happen because of UI from pard. As for the story its ending was very sad. I held 2533 with a KJJ and dummy held two hearts and a minimum. By the time the dust cleared the opponents had turned my 6 tricks into 8. and the TD decided to turn my top into a zero since he thought this hand was made just for the rule of coincidence. ** I personally think that it had everything to do with the gesticulations of his partner, but what do I know? The TD didn’t agree.

The mandatory skip bid pause does little good and may even do harm when players in general do not try to have steady tempo. When players [read 98.5% in real life] do not try to have good tempo then most of the time there is no good tempo to protect. The mandatory pause is useful for protecting the tempo of all four players, and a player that speed bids in order to feel he is 'justified' to accuse his opponent of cheating has been given some lessons that will not be easily displaced. Which means that if next hand speed bids it is appropriate [read important] for third hand to pause the 10-15 sec that were allotted to second hand.

My simple rule is to make no law that forces players to cheat. and the right thing to do is to a]teach everyone what good tempo is and why it is important when it comes to fair play and skillful play/being a tougher opponent b] teach everyone that does not have good tempo how to learn what their normal tempo is c] make everyone aware that they are expected to [at least] try to have good tempo d] teach everyone why the mandatory skip bid pause figures into fair play and benefits everyone when everyone makes the effort