axman

When IBer substitutes a sufficient call, how does that return the number of communications he has made to his partner to the number that he was entitled to have made? It hasn't. what it has done is to legitimize that the offenders are entitled to more bids than non offenders. At that point, the best that can be done is to attempt to even out the total number of turns between the two sides. The most straight forward approach is to impose upon the partner a meaningless [and legal] call at the earliest sensible opportunity [his next turn]. In other words, offender takes two turns allotted to his partnership rather than splitting that duty. That he might be passed out behaves [for the most part] as an overbalancing of the scales. But that imbalance is poetic. Are there consequences to such an approach? yes. The non offenders are provided the maximum unfettered bidding room, bidding room that otherwise they could be unfairly be deprived if the offenders augmented their bidding with UI. Offender may have UI that enables him to profitably bid a higher contract with additional confidence, thereby taking non offenders out of an auction they would have otherwise profitted. Even still, offender's canceled call is quite likely to have conveyed unauthorized information so material that if partner is permitted to call freely the scales cannot be balanced. In the final analysis, the suggestion that allows partner to bid does nothing to balance what offender has gained- it merely shifts the responsibility by creating even bigger problems [ethical and moral] not merely for the players but for adjudicators.

it is difficult to get the context not knowing what the antecedents are. But I would term "I don't have a problem with that per se, ... " are dangerous words when referring to the construction of law. But talking about them can be useful when discussing fundamentals. Where I am heading starts with "Misbid/misinformation/psychic decisions are going to be much much uglier in this world. " perhaps the most overlooked [while being the most important] consideration when constructing law reduces down to the above statement. Namely, that law needs to be constructed based upon the premise that the game will be played in strict accordance with the law; and especially, with the expectation that every irregularity is remedied, and, in strict accordance with law. Which comes down to the question, for instance- if decisions are going to be ugly, is that a satisfactory norm? Apparently, Adam feels "I don't have a problem with that per se, ... " that state of affairs is satisfactory. So, if such apprach is the correct approach, yet is ugly, does the question not then become, 'Is there some underlying principle that is wrong? Else, why is the outcome ugly?' WHat I'm suggesting is [a] that ugly is an unsatisfactory standard for an outcome. when fundamental principles are tested, if they are correct [they may not yield beauty, but] they will not yield ugly. and [c] if tested and they yield beauty then it is as close to certainty as possible that they are correct. in other words, fundamental principle #1: Law needs to be constructed based upon the premise that the game will be played in strict accordance with the law; and especially, with the expectation that every irregularity is remedied, and, in strict accordance with law.

I find it curious that the W cards suggest any action other than pass. As W in fact passed it might be inferred that he was not contemplating bidding [had his chance at the one level] and thus was contemplating something else. If that something else was the likelihood of setting the contract that best could have been done after the auction. As such his lengthy pause [W’s assertion that he was entitled to pause after N’s skip is strong evidence he did pause even though he asserts he didn’t] suggests values, values in an unexpected place. I would think that for players of international caliber and experience that such inference would not be lost upon E or W. I am thinking that W’s pause approaches a breach of L73B for such a player. As for E, he did not help matters. I believe that mandatory pauses** after skip bids minimize the likelihood of a multitude of player’s problems. The time for W’s thinking should have been provided by the pause that E didn’t perform. That S was not given the expected? pause his taking 15sec ought not be considered a variation in tempo. **Presuming mandatory pauses are not prohibited Personally, I believe that a fourth best heart is not particularly out of the ordinary; but not a standout option [no option is stand out]. Also, in this auction I would expect declarer to value a spade lead, and holding the ace, I have some reluctance to leading a spade, but not dramatically adverse to it but I would anticipate it is tantamount to giving up the prospect of setting the contract.

I think this a very poor idea. -snip- Furthermore, I doubt whether you realise what an enormous change to the Law book you are proposing. Either you will bring in an amazing number of judgement decisions compared with the current - and this is for things like calls and leads out of turn, so we are talking club TDs - or you will change the Laws to make people play on under such restraints that quite frankly they will refuse to. I think you should rethink the effects of this idea. DWS’s astuteness has drawn attention to something that is of paramount importance. Of such importance that it is well worth clarifying; and, recording in one’s Little Black Book. Namely, that the approach that is taken can have far reaching consequences. He phrased it, ‘…I doubt whether you realise what an enormous change to the Law book you are proposing.’ To elaborate, it should not be lost that every aspect, including what might be considered inconsequential, can have just as extensive effect, because when properly constructed the law is made of a single fabric with every provision potentially interconnected with/through every other provision. And it is here that the importance of constructing the law’s foundation wisely can be seen. This leads to one further comment. Either "If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation." is correct doctrine, or, it is not. If it is indeed not, then the search for the correct foundation is for something else. And, if it is, then there should be no fear in undertaking the consequences. I wanted to look more closely at AWM’s assertion- It may or may not be obvious that when constructing law it is wise to be careful in selecting words, such that there is little opportunity to construe incorrect [particularly unwanted] or multiple meanings, and to avoid the need to rewrite passages in the future to adequately define words and phrases used. And in as much as such a view applies to laws, even more so it must apply to the doctrine upon which the law is based. With this in mind I set out to parse the meaning of AWM (Adam W. Meyerson): "If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation." I have a difficult time parsing the meaning of ‘than would have been likely’; as in just what is ‘would have been likely’? Is it a single target, or one of several targets, or several targets? What is the basis for judging what makes something likely? There is no specification provided. This lack of definition does not seem to be a satisfactory foundation, well, for anything worthwhile. One word that is quite clear is ‘never’. I believe that it is worthwhile to consider the ramifications of such a condition. For instance, in order to be certain that offenders never receive a better result, it necessarily follows that there must be certainty that there is no plausible result that is worse. In almost all circumstances, such a result is almost always a very, very horrible outcome. Thus, by committing an infraction offender must receive such [horrible] outcome without regard as to the other actions of both sides. The consequence being that once an infraction occurs it is pointless to continue because the result becomes a function of what would have been likely if they hadn’t infracted. Period. For me, such a principle is so counter intuitive that I am at a loss as how to assert that it is an unsatisfactory principle. If someone can give a lucid discussion that demonstrates otherwise I think it would be worth reading. As for discovering what principle upon which remedies should be based it would help to look at numerous hypothetical situations: Consider the outcomes that reflect justice in the situation where it is illegal to have secret bidding agreements, Pr#X has a secret agreement, have employed it, and the opponents 1. with a result of -110, -would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement 1a. would have done A which would result in a score of -470, or +680 1b. would have done B which would result in a score +230 or +1430 1c. would have done C which would result in a score of +680 or +1430 1d. would have done D which would result in a score of +1430 1e. would have done E which would result in a score of -300 1f. would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement but claim 1d. 1g. occasionally will take any of 1a-1e, and on this occasion would have [stars in alignment] 2. with a result of -110, - would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement 2a. would have done A which would result in a score of -110 2b. would have done B which would result in a score of -200 2c. would have done C which would result in a score of -500 2d. would have done D which would result in a score of -1100 2e. would have done E which would result in a score of -100 2f. would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement but claim 1e. 2g. occasionally will take any of 1a-1e, and on this occasion would have [stars in alignment] 3. with a result of +100, - would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement 3a. would have done A which would result in a score of -100 or +300 3b. would have done B which would result in a score of -100 or -200 3c. would have done C which would result in a score of -500 3d. would have done D which would result in a score of -1100 3e. would have done E which would result in a score of -100 3f. would not have done anything different had it not been a secret agreement but claim 1a. 3g. occasionally will take any of 1a-1e, and on this occasion would have [stars in alignment]

The first aim seems to define "equity" as restorting the status quo". By and large, the laws achieve this aim. Presumably, status quo refers to putting the situation to that of pre irregularity. 2008TFLB is a long, long, long way from restoring the status quo.

when taking a poll it is important to not presume that the agreements in place are the same agreements used by your favorite partnership. The context of all previous action is imperative as well as what agreement exists with respect to possible actions that are available. Of particular interest in this case are the thresholds for 3H and X, for instance. As for other matters, we are not told the duration of slow [compared to normal], nor any mannerisms accompanying the slowness.

Actually, what is crucial is that what was claimed, and the timing is irrelevant. Oh, yes it is very relevant. The point in time where declarer makes his claim reveals a lot about whether he knew that there was a trump out. This is plane silly. Declarer has stated that the number of tricks depended on the place of the ♥K. He didn't state that it depended on the ♥K being singleton. There is no doubt that declarer was going to take the heart finesse. That all depends on whether we judge that declarer knew about the outstanding trump. This is why everybody would give 13 tricks immediately if declarer pulled one round of trumps. It would be even clearer if declarer claimed after RHO followed suit in trick 1. Pulling precisely two rounds of trumps and then claiming is the only doubtful situation. This is why some would not give 13. And it is why I said that the table director is in the best position to judge this. If declarer would have claimed at any other point in time, this would be a no-brainer. Rik A tautology is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing. [gratitude to W Shakespeare] definition, idiot: someone who knows that his score depends on the location of the HK, yet, does nothing about it.

Actually, what is crucial is that what was claimed, and the timing is irrelevant. I'll point out since it is possible for E to hold stiff HK a viable line of play is for playing the HA on the first round [as is provided by L70E1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, ....] As for the status of the spade suit, declarer said nothing. As he holds so many it is conceiveable that he inaccurately believes they are in and - L70C [When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director Shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if:] clearly provides the defense with a trump trick via ruffing a third round minor.

Over the years I have developed the opinion for the case where one's agreement is conditional ['varies' depending upon what agreement the opponents have]: at the beginning of every round [a] it is important that the opponents be made aware of every such conditional agreement [should be done with an auxilliary sheet] for every such conditional agreement it is ascertained what the opponent's agreement is

If declarer won no tricks after T9 there is a 3 trick penalty: one each for winning T4 and T9, and one for winning a trick subsequent T4. If declarer won a trick subsequent T9 then four trick penalty: one each for winning T4 and T9, and one for winning a trick subsequent T4 and one for winning a trick subsequent T9 subject to the provisions of L64B

There is some misconception. To be an irregularity, 5N must be an IB, a breach of L16/73, a BOOT, a failure to satisfy an enforced pass, or failure to repeat a call as required. Absent these, calling different than intended is not an irregularity, as of now. However, to be thorough, when a player corrects his call that is an irregularity if the opponents believe that all the the conditions of L25A weren't satisfied.

Given the range of hands that might be opened 2D by this partnership [given W’s hand and E’s bidding], I would judge it dubious to ever invite a S game [thereby risking a minus <losing a S,H,C,2-3D>when a plus ought to be had] with the E cards on the basis that W is to make the decision on so little information. So, when W does not accept the invitation, but, does consider it at length, it is reasonable to judge that E forcing to game by bidding on was spurred by something more** than the cards he held, as in he took unauthorized inference from the pause. **Noticing the four hands together, it is apparent that EW can produce 10 tricks by force in NT and 11 in S; it’s almost like E heard a post mortem. Two comments- 1. I have the feeling that there is more information contained in 3H than a general invitation based on unknown values. After all H is the implied suit of N and 3H might well promise a H stopper, or ask about one, giving W something to think about. 2. If screen regulations are to be a factor in some ruling it would have been useful to have quoted them.

This matter, to some extent, was discussed without resolution in March 2009 at the ACBLLC meeting [and in the time following adjournment]. The argument was made to willing ears, if skeptical, that explainer had a duty** to advise the opponents that partner may well be confused in his actions, such as in the case where the partnership used to have agreement X instead of the current Y. To demonstrate the dubious nature of such an assertion I’ll use an example from yesterday’s BB- one that does not involve explanations between opponents, but solely communication between partners which was a source of confusion. In a competitive slam auction, Zia made a lead directing double of D and then made a lightner double calling for a C thereby canceling the D [which kibitzers could see was a dubious attempt to get the maximum penalty from the D lead]. Hamman dutifully led a C and scored -1210 for his effort. This shows that merely one small piece of confusion swung 32 non vulnerable imps. In fact, it was reported that the episode had been reproduced at two other tables- which goes to show that conflicting information often is consistently gotten wrong. The point being that even with the best of intentions stuff meant as helpful can lead to disastrous outcomes between partners, so, imagine the effect of producing conflicting explanations for opponents that are so-called meant to be helpful. If nothing else, it may take the opponent several minutes to sift through what he will choose to believe. Should mr. helpful be hit with a huge slow play penalty for causing the mess or should the victim be hit with it for taking the time to pause? And what if the extraneous information indeed sows confusion and the opponents suffer for it? Imo, it is likely that it is foreseeable that such efforts to be so-called helpful are likely to cost the opponents rather help them; and, additionally, will entail breaches of L73B. **distinct from a personal view of ethics

I rephrase my question: Up to now, 5 from 5 players who posted here have said that they had bid 3 Spade and that pass is no LA. I think that the point of view is relevant, for example given the subject auction, how many reasonable players would be willing to lay say 10 to 1 that EW will take at least 9 tricks in a S contract?; I’ll lay those odds. Why, because E was considering taking the auction to the 4 level. And then, of these same reasonable players, after changing doubler’s hand to a minimum non descript [double] and changing the bidding to good tempo, how many would lay even 5 to 1 that EW will take at least 9 tricks in a S contract? I wouldn’t lay even money. I’ve seen hands like this go for 800 when even 300 was too much. I’ve seen the opponents time and again blast off into a slam they decided to play in a partial -after pard bids 3S on such a hand. On some occasions I will bid 3S, but none will be occasions when UI is available such as described here.

That's not what the law says. It says he is not permitted to consult. If he has already done so, that's an infraction. I think you mean "why is no specific punishment specified right here in this law." We do have the discussion elsewhere in the laws as to the meanings of words like "must" and the impact of an infraction of what one "must" (or "must not") do on rulings. It sounds like you want every law to be of the form "if a player does X, the TD shall do Y", with never a place for TD judgement or discretion. I'm not so sure that's a good idea. A little common sense might be nice - it is ridiculous to claim that an infraction on one board requires a player to pass for the rest of the session! Suppsoedly, the thread was addressing the need to say things in the correct [and understandable to the reader] manner. Personally, what I want is for correct things to be said. I was pointing out that the scope encompassed by Jeremy's view ought to be much larger than than it appears. < A little common sense might be nice - it is ridiculous to claim that an infraction on one board requires a player to pass for the rest of the session! < Well. it is what the law spells out. But, not exactly. 2007L72A Common Sense Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. 2007L81B2. Common Sense The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

I concur with the view that the words chosen need to reflect what is needed to be reflected. Though it ought not be restricted to what Jeremy has singled out. As a matter of example review 2007L10C2 2. If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner. I question just what is the purpose of commanding a player who has consulted partner on the selection of penalty, to not consult. And, as for a player that has not obeyed that which was decided important enough to require such a command, why is no specific punishment specified? another example LAW 30 - When a player has passed out of rotation and the call is cancelled, the option in Law 29A not having been exercised, **the following provisions apply** (if the pass is artificial see C): 30B. 2. (a) When, after any player has bid, the offender passes out of rotation at his partner’s turn to call, **the offender must pass whenever it is his turn to call**, and Law 23 may apply. On board 1 Z passed at his partner's turn. The law thereby specifies, the specification of Z passing at his partner's turn being satisfied [being the sole condition] for demanding that Z pass for eternity, Z must pass for eternity without exception and without reprieve. Elsewhere it has been pointed out that where a game is concerned the scope of rules is unlimited. hmmmm. So, here rests a rule that is cllear and emphatic irrespective of the likelihood it is of dubious construction. If one presumes that the proper consequence is to last for the duration of the hand only, then it is necessary to specify a second condition to meet that need.

You have two 2-winner events. Once the td chooses to accomodate the movement changes he needs to instruct that the interrupted board be shuffled prior [there being no interaction between sections there is good reason to avoid losing comparisons] to proceeding.

Pr A has filled in a half table in the other section thereby creating a half table. Pr B takes the chair of Pr C which has started their assigned board Q against D. Pr C taking the old place of Pr B and sitting out. B should be advised there will be consequences [since he wanted this change in movement] should any adjusted scores need to be awarded. Once this has happened, by this reassignment board Q becomes a board played/started by the incorrect contestant [but not C or D’s fault]. The provisions of L15C apply to B&D and later to C&??. So, the auction is restarted and because B does not reproduce the auction and are at fault, an artificial score is awarded based on D not being at fault and B at fault. Because the board has already been played in the other section it must not be redealt. Further, when C meets the board Q later [L15C], if the auction is not reproduced then an artificial score must be awarded with no side at fault. And, a PP assessed B for causing the loss of a comparison. To recap, B,C,& D are less than happy. And because of the unnecessary loss of two?? comparisons the field is likely to not be pleased. Moral, once a good movement is set it is unwise to muck with it unnecessarily. As a note, the law is less than clear as to when there are occasions [such as this] that it is compatible [L6D3] for the TD to order a new deal.

I'll suggest that such assertion is dubious. To wit: Consider 2007L23 Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. L23 invoked the specification ‘whenever…. an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side…’ which in a way says that of those that fulfill the specification, the ethically challenged are grouped together with non ethically challenged [such as they who were merely careless] to be treated the same. Then to treat them all the same presumes them to be equivalent. I contend that L23 is not about giving sportsman of the hour awards- which therefore leaves the affected as candidates for the dungeon: The distinction becomes important once it is realized that the premise of remedies for irregularities first presume the contestant is playing fair to his best ability so and the remedy therefore is totally sufficient. But, then, when the occasion occurs that the remedy is inadequate the explanation becomes that the contestant was not trying to play fair. We could go to every nation in the world, have them pass a law that applying L23 carries no connotation of shady conduct; and have every court affirm such a law; yet it does not stop the true message of ‘there was something bad about your conduct’ from being received. The problem actually being that such a message ought to be sent solely to they whose conduct was indeed bad.

I think this a very poor idea. The current Law book has tried to move towards continuing to play bridge: you want a move the away, a drastic move the other way. Sorry, I think it a vast step backwards. Suppose I bid out of turn. the opponents get certain options, and the likelihood is that I will get a poorer score than if I did not infract. But it is not guaranteed, and occasionally, because of the rub of the green, or because the opponents make a poor or unfortunate choice in their options, I will do better. Now you want to take that score away? Furthermore, I doubt whether you realise what an enormous change to the Law book you are proposing. Either you will bring in an amazing number of judgement decisions compared with the current - and this is for things like calls and leads out of turn, so we are talking club TDs - or you will change the Laws to make people play on under such restraints that quite frankly they will refuse to. I think you should rethink the effects of this idea. DWS’s astuteness has drawn attention to something that is of paramount importance. Of such importance that it is well worth clarifying; and, recording in one’s Little Black Book. Namely, that the approach that is taken can have far reaching consequences. He phrased it, ‘…I doubt whether you realise what an enormous change to the Law book you are proposing.’ To elaborate, it should not be lost that every aspect, including what might be considered inconsequential, can have just as extensive effect, because when properly constructed the law is made of a single fabric with every provision potentially interconnected with/through every other provision. And it is here that the importance of constructing the law’s foundation wisely can be seen. This leads to one further comment. Either "If there is a violation of law or regulation, then the offending pair should never receive a better result than would have been likely if they had not violated the law or regulation." is correct doctrine, or, it is not. If it is indeed not, then the search for the correct foundation is for something else. And, if it is, then there should be no fear in undertaking the consequences.

It is important to examine the reasons this view is appropriate or not appropriate. To construct law upon this basis but without the reasoning can lead to questions as to the appropriateness of the law without the ability to have confidence that the right thing was done. I’ll express my opinion when the reasoning of others has taken shape. As for the other items, without a framework for reasoning it is premature debate particulars, so are best left for later.

In Britain, the adminstration of a sport, whether a mindsport or other sport, may find itself bound by principles of natural justice, if someone takes you to court over a decision you make. If you take powers to act in a quasi-judicial way, and thus have powers, for example, to remove someone's livelihood by banning him from a sport, the court may insist that you operate in line with principles of natural justice. So you had a set out disciplinary procedure and complaints mechanism, based your decision on evidence rather than prejudice, gave the complainant a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and acted consistently and without undue discrimination. But the rules of the games themselves don't have to be fair. I made a 99.9% safety play, and went off, but the other guy took a poor line and made it. Where's the justice in that? The ball was in the back of the net, we all saw it on the telly, but the ref didn't see it and ruled it a goal kick. Even less justice in that, but that's the rules, and you can't take them to court over it. Axman is of course talking about the rectification of irregularities. In the process of creation it is important there be some standard, some model against which to judge the creation, if for no other reason than to decide if more time at the drawing board is needed. Bridge is a game that relies upon propriety and the game is untenable without a fair field of play that is level. For the sake of the need to call the standard something I chose the words NJ, which turns out to have its own set of issues: I did some investigation and have found that NJ has been adopted by legal doctrine to convey a specific set of meanings, while not contrary to the use I would have envisioned, usage would be too restrictive compared to what I had envisioned. What I envisioned [within the realm of practicality] the scope of NJ to encompass includes The creation of a level field of play that is fair Recognizes the nature of of man: eg. does not impose duties that have no realistic expectation of being successfully fulfilled eg. does not impose the role of judge and self-executioner upon the infractor Punishment fits the crime, measured to balance the damage Reward commensurate with the task *** addition Sept 7 *** to the extent practical, treat all contestants the same adjunct – different subclasses may [or may not] provide just cause to necessitate different treatment by rule of law adjunct- different subclasses may [or may not] provide just cause to afford different treatment by rule of law though premature for discussion purposes, here are examples of classes classes: player, bidder, defender, declarer, dummy, claimer, offender, OS, non-offender, NOS *** *** addition Sept 24 *** The underlying principle of bridge law is to provide solutions to player's problems while minimizing the creation of problems. *** Notably, the effect of unfair rules is that they are flaunted, and the flaunting is excused by the participants and the authority. In the end they are applied via bias the deciding factor being the bias of the adjudicator. And what must not be lost sight of is that the subject is bridge, which is something that some of us believe to be worthwhile- not some non descript game which would likely be nothing more than a passing fad. I suggest strongly that the choice of foundation leads hopefully to wise choices in creation, and avoids unwise choices. It has been suggested that ‘Axman is of course talking about the rectification of irregularities.’ I point out that the right thing is not accomplished when the remedy is fair but the rule is unfair. Nor is the right thing accomplished when the adjudicator is unfair, even when the rule and the remedy is fair. And it makes no difference how fair the adjudicator is when the rules and the remedies are not. It may not be possible to control the adjudicator, it is possible to control the rules and the remedies, and I urge strongly to start out with the best frame of mind

To bring this down to brass talk I understand that the law in question is 68B2 (and nothing else): 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Unauthorized information may exist, so the Director should be summoned immediately. Play continues. Any card that has been exposed by a defender in these circumstances is not a penalty card but Law 16D applies to information arising from its exposure and the information may not be used by the partner of the defender who has exposed it. I see good reasons for this exception in one specific situation from the general laws on claims and concessions. I also see good reasons against it. However, I still fear (as I have already written before) that a removal of Law 68B2 will be a cure worse than the disease it is supposed to cure. Sven In the subject case there is the premise that the TD has ruled in accordance of law. The principle of appearances suggests that it was illegal for claimer to claim. It follows that the principles under examination are the created entitlement to claim and the created entitlement to have contested claims litigated forthwith. The matter resolves upon the realization that if there is no entitlement to litigate a disputed claim [such as a claimer cannot know that his claim will be litigated if disputed] there can be no fundamental right to claim [where so-called claims are in fact superfluous mental exercises].

To construct appropriate rules a necessary foundation needs to be laid and understood, namely the expression of fundamental principles. I suggest that the framework of bridge rest upon the principle of natural justice. That is, the game’s remedies reflect the actions of the players- to the degree that it is practical. The point being that once concurrence is acknowledged that natural justice is an appropriate foundation then it becomes worthwhile to examine the finer distinctions and expressions of the rules.. It is important to recognize that for the principle to produce its worth it must be applied correctly and to do so it must be understood together with the physics to which it is to be applied. For instance, the principle leads to the adjunct of, “what the players do, counts”. An example of this adjunct is seen in the ‘touch-move’ rule in chess. Another adjunct of natural justice is the presence of consistency/ absence of hypocrisy. Without such an underlying foundation, there will be inadequate basis with which to compare and know that the end result is that which is sought. I suggest that fundamental principles be offered and examined, and the reasoning be established why they are valid or invalid.

At this point in the hand it is improper for the LHO to draw attention to what RHO said, under any circumstances. If the LHO needs to ascertain if the explanation was incorrect he must wait for the proper time. He did not do so, and therefore it is proper to call the director to advise about UI immediately, and then later to rule on later assertions of infractions. The point about investigating LHO hearing is irrelevant except for investigating L73 prohibitions of improper communication between partners and must wait for after conclusion of the hand.