axman

Perhaps it might be interesting to change the situation a bit, specifically the TD having given the ruling, the 3D was not accepted, and instead of attempting to substitute a double, the player does substitute a double.

Under what Law? That they're trying to have their cake and eat it and have done something so ridiculous that the bad score is completely down to them. E has the clearest of clear passes over 2N whatever it means and the MI has not damaged them (unless it did in the play). See OleBerg's post. But also consider, what is wrong with "having their cake and eating it"? Why should they not? Its premise is the concept of getting something for nothing. To gain some appreciation of the ramifications of such a concept review the history of what Bernie Madoff accomplished. Excuse me, is accomplishing.

Well, not exactly. I will explain that he is not permitted to change his call by law [L72B1], especially after being so advised by the TD. I will further explain that his remarks are UI and that the provisions of L16 come to bear. If there are further questions I will be pleased to be more detailed at an appropriate time after the hand. Should the player persist, say with 'aren't I allowed to change an unintended call without penalty?' the response is that as you know that then you would also know that there is the condition of doing so with no pause for thought. As you have paused to find out if it is ok and what you do depends on your finding out, you have demonstrated that you have paused for thought. And, have inappropriately delayed the progress of the game which will incur a 1 mp reduction in your score. or, say, should he persist by changing his call then the provisions of L25B and L16 and L72B1 and L91 come to bear.

There is a difference between playing out a hand and being uduly slow doing it. When such things happen sumon the TD. After obtaining the facts the TD should should quote the relevant L74 and state that because there was nothing to think about what has happened is an example of unduly slow play which is likely to iritate the opponents and otherwise improperly delay the game- and should be carefully avoided. In this instance the penalty is .1 matchpoint. Ask if they understand the reason for the penalty and caution that in the future the penalty will be large. As for club bridge, there are a great number of patrons that are offended when an opponent claims, even to the point of being offensive and wasting huge amounts of time. They came to play the cards, and that means all 52 of them. As for contested claims being rare. Well that is what should be due for claims that have no doubtful point. But the truth is that a large proportion of claims are faulty and the reason they are not disputed is that it is an intimidating situation for the other side to issue a protest. I personally witnessed a bum contested claim ruling favoring Helgemo in the Vanderbilt that should have been appealed but wasn't because expending political capital was too expensive. [Especially with the proclivity of rulings that give unearned tricks to the faulty claim.]

The mind expects something to be there so it believes quite often that it is- when it isn't. For instance 27B1a states : Law 16D does not apply but see D following. " Which leaves the remainder of L16 in force as applicable. For a canceled 1N via 27B1a, such IB is not part of a legal auction. 16D [the only vehicle that makes 1N Ai to the other side] does not apply. The canceled 1N thus is extraneous and is UI to all, except as provided by 73D1 thereby avoiding the prohibition of 16A3. And I think it is reasonable to ascribe an opponent's canceled IB as a variation in manner. iow, the ' Law 16D does not apply....' does not make the canceled call AI when other law ascribes it as UI. I don't know why my head hurts and I don't care to know.

Players do not know what they should do, and I believe that it is not reasonable to treat the above any different from what he did do, which was to stop his claim after saying it was wrong and consult the TD. To give a different ruling if he added the words that he wanted to susbstitute a correct statement, which he apparently did want, seems wrong. I think it is wise to rule in accordance with the facts of the situation. In this instance the situations are very different which can be cause to treat them differently. I am inclined to believe that that there is a threshold for when a clarification is over. For the facts given, declarer on his own volition stopped making a clarification once he stated [without outside prompting] he had goofed. It is material that he did not correct his statement and this should be basis enough for ruling upon a disputed claim. It is my opinion that a claim is constituted by its whole as distinct from its pieces [if any]. Which means that in effect that the clarification is not over until it is over; and, once it's over, it is finis. Thus, it is incumbant upon claimer to make it clear he is not done in order to have any possible expectation to correct his clarification after he interrupts it. To do otherwise gives the opponents cause to believe that he is complete. Of course. About one claim in five hundred is challenged, and many of those are ok anyway. The game would be considerably slowed down otherwise. I believe that TDs encouraging players to claim does them a disservice. Far too many bad claims are made by players that believe they know what theyy are doing. It is better that a player do his own instigating. The TD role ought to be to facilitate the education of interested players as to the ramifications of claims. And for players that claim, they ought to be well versed in the law, and not as you put it "Players do not know what they should do,". When a player claims he short circuits the law's provision to play out the 13 tricks and it is important that he ought to know what he does.

Pause I'll point out that you gave the determined facts as 'after a pregnant pause he said "I suppose"...' . In which case there is no doubtful point that the trumps are to be pulled forthwith. Absent a demonstration as to what actually in fact happened, there are some things that can be noticed from the later alleged assertion: [a] claimer did not state the condition of the trumps. hmmmm- he didn't know it. so, just how is he to not draw trumps, since in order to find out that they don't break he must play one which he has asserted he will not do. [c] having stated what he will not do, he has not stated what he will do [d] <censored> [f] iow, the pregnant part of the claim is, well, buptkiss because it settles nothing; and if anything it is an acknowledgement that claimer knows he's done something dumb.

fwiw if I were E in the described situation I cannot find any source of motivation to do other than pass over 2N. I therefore am of the belief that 3S is a consequence of the availability of a free change of call without penalty [an attractive nuisance, if you wish] and not in any way a consequence of the stated agreement to 2N.

Once a claim has been made the play is over and there is no prohibition of exposing one's cards. The prudence of doing so is rather dubious prior to claim statement. L66D However, once the TD has been summoned the players are admonished to to nothing without the TD instruction, upon the pain of jeopardizing one's rights. However, the law is not clear on this matter as there has been no irregularity as yet to draw attention. Notably the defenders did act without the TD. There is much good to be said for requiring that all of claimer's statement count. HOwever, my current thinking is that claimer ought to be able to give a corrected/ substituted clarification provided he [a] makes it clear just what he is doing and does not unduly delay the progress of the game. In this instance, claimer has stopped clarifying and summoned the TD. We might imagine why the TD was called but the table was not TOLD why. What the table was told was that claimer believed his claim was invalid. And I believe it is that statement upon which the ruling must rest, because indeed that claim was invalid. I would add that I believe if instead claimer had [a] retracted and immediately substituted a clarification or stated that he wanted to substitute a different clarification after checking with the TD, then it would be appropriate for any ruling upon a contested claim to be based upon the substituted clarification.

According to TFLB when a player substitutes a call for his call without pause for thought, application of L25A provides for no penalty if the original call was inadvertent. When the original call was not inadvertent L25A does not so provide. But L25B provides that LHO may condone or not. If not condoned, [in this case the condition of an IB condoned apparently exists] then the substituted call is canceled. Therefore, once a pause has occurred nothing good can happen to a player that then speaks up about his faux pas. He has no duty to his opponent to further disadvantage his side nor to give aid and comfort to the opponent. Once the opponent calls then 'things are back on track' and it is irrelevant whether or not you believe that the result is thereby skewed.

If, at the time the TD begins his investigation, the cards have not been mixed then the TD can have high confidence in the facts he ascertains. In the situation named, the cards had long been mixed prior to the assertion of an irregularity. And is this not the fundamental basis for "If he cannot talk ot the oppositiojn then he rules as he would if they do not remember, ie no change to the score."?

Kearse's rendition of Cappelletti [2C= single suited TO] suggests that 2N promises 11+good points with at least 3 cards in all suits. KNowing partner's pancake was unsuitable for opening suggests that 10 tricks in a suit are likely to be tenuous [but might be easy]. Nine tricks in NT probably has play and probably depends upon the lead. As a believer in killer OLs I vote for 3S 85% of the time or pass [but not very often]. ps it is curious that the defense didn't go CA,SA,C ruff.DA,C ruff,DK for 5 defensive tricks.

L65D. Agreement on Results of Play A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke. The supposed reason for agreeing to the outcome prior to mixing one's cards is to be able to settle disputes with verifiable facts. After mixing one's cards the element of relying upon memory is not particularly reliable, especially after significant passage of time. Generally, to alter the score as provided by L79 in such a situation the TD should have total confidence in the accuracy of the facts. Also, when confidence is less than total, there being a reasonable assertion that a score is too high, and the score is corrected lower there is unlikely to be justification for a corresponding increase in score to the other side. In the subject scenario, should the other side corroborate the assertion of quitting an incorrect card [a] it still is unlikely that the order of play can be determined with certainty there can be no revoke penalty [L64B4] [c] because of [a] the provisions of L64C are not available and [d] the provisions of L79 suggest that declarer's score may be corrected while defenders stand. Without corroboration there is no basis for altering the score. From personal experience the opponents on many occasions have convinced me after the fact [including recently after the fact] that they took tricks that in actuality they did not. The circumspect attitude in L79 is indeed appropriate.

A few observations. When giving hands it makes for tremendous confusion to not use the W N E S auction format. It is useful to be advised as to what reason was given for the ruling request. Otherwise it is possible to be non responsive in a player's time of need.*** I don't know what a max [passed hand] is but for this pair it includes some pretty moth eaten holdings given W not taking a more constructive action after XX [as he has 5S and a D to contribute opposite a pard that promises a stronger hand than he has promised]. Apparently, overcalls don't promise much if E was unwilling to delay raise to 3S. There are several inferences from the E pause. [a] it suggests consideration for taking a piece out of 3C, but an unwillingness due to the undependable nature of overcalls by this pard it suggests quality honors that are often absent from such auctions [c] it suggests spade support that might be considered anemic [d] it does not suggest the inference of dubious values Authorized inferences include the expectation of the maximum of one spade [trump] loser. The expectation that at minimum E can contribute a H ruff and a side winner/ additional H ruff. So, if the limit of the hand is 2S then [a] 3S can not be hurt more than -100 It is probable that NS will achieve at least +110 if left in clubs even while 3S makes +140 [c] if the limit in clubs is less than 9 tricks then it is near certainty that spades will produce at least 9 tricks Under such conditions pass approaches unreasonable. I don't think that I could ague against an assertion that pass is not a LA, and if pressed to take a stand would so argue. To complete the analysis inference [a] demonstrably suggests X over 3S demonstrably suggests X and 4S over 3S [c] demonstrably suggests looking for another strain over 3S [d] demonstrably suggests pass over 3S As an addendum, [a], , [c] demonstrably suggests that 3S won't get hurt [if for different reasons] which is the same as the inference [due to the playing strength held] from XX. It therefore is reasonable to rule that no infraction of L16 occurred. *** I point this out because, for instance, the TD was summoned before it was possible to know if an infraction occurred [no sensible judgment can be made before the hands are known]. In such a situation, the TD call has the effect of intimidation/ distraction and it is not lost on me the direction the fruit will fall because of it.

I'll point out that yakking during a hand involves intimidation and distraction. Along with rummaging through purses, painting one's face, consuming food, making notes on a scorecard. And for you poker players it creates tells [you know, those gesters that pard might be able to read about what he is thinking]. Which is to say that the person who is yakking as well as those who are participating are not paying much attention to the important stuff. And that means that they are going to use additional extra time for their bidding and play. This is what I do: Nothing. I merely wait for everybody to be ready to play. Whatever they are doing must be more important so let them finish it and they'l be more ready to speed along the things you feel are important. This way they are most likely to do their best and do it a lot sooner, and almost always within the time allotted no matter how many boards behind we are at the beginning of the round.

Comments have been made about review by a conduct committee [appropriate] but no mention yet as to the effect upon the hand in play. But I do think that resolving the hand is important for the progress of the tournament. It seems to me that a breach of L73E has occurred. Its effect was to deprive the other side of preparation of defenses to the defense as well as to deceive and entrap them into dubious calls; and, possibly disconcert/ get them angry [a breach of L74A2]. A PP is in order for the lying. I don't think 24imp is out of line. The correction of MI provides for the 1NT to correct his call via cancelling the two calls. But it is possible that being deprived of the opportunity to discuss the ramifications of the opponents' system caused irretrievable [via correction of call] damage and thus may support a score adjustment. Also, these shenanigans quite likely have predictably delayed the game significantly and may warrant a PP.