axman

By paying attention, once RHO POOT you have L57A play penalty options against LHO. Advise prompt director assistance.

I think this assertion is not merely contentious, but dubious. While adaptation has occurred it has not been in the direction of 'as good as possible'. A more apt description is in the direction of pandering to an audience that is little understood. For instance, we are told that it is undesirable to utilize UI, yet the laws go to great lengths to not merely incentivize it but insist upon it. My perception is that that many sense something is not the way it ought be and are unable to see that it is law that is unjust. My experience has been that 'improving' a piece of law here and a piece there will not and cannot have a satisfactory outcome. This is so because when it is discovered that the problem is not solved it will be said that it is because the changes did not work instead of the failure to fix everything that is wrong. Notably the WBFLC embarked on such** an undertaking (unofficially in 2002), found it too much work and abandoned the effort in 2005. **actually, this assertion is dubious because the objective was more to reorganize the words so they would read better (for the most part retain the old meaning- rather than improve the underlying principles)

Aren't these situations that CCs **address. ** #@?%^##ought to/#!%$@

... AND the methods of both pairs.

I observe that bridge is filled with wonderful complexities. Claims are considerably more complex necessitating very complex remedies when they aren't perfect... and even when they are.

I believe that a player is entitled to consider/think to form a plan. Not speaking to consequences for the manner by which he does so. Also, i believe that he is entitled to not be interrupted except for matters such as safety/health. As to the until business- that could be foggy notions.

Does the TD have the independent purview to interrupt the progress of a board in the absence of an irregularity? Say, for the current instance? In the current instance the TD without invitation has stopped progress of the board to instruct the players to hurry up. Such an interruption can only prolong the time consumed and thus does not comport with the TD duty- so thus is an irregularity. If the players improperly delay there is remedy. The TD therefore best announces a reminder of the time remaining so as to avoid further delaying players about to be in time trouble.

Hmmmmmm. When it comes to acting out of turn I would rather think of it as fortune telling. The law says that you get one action for your turn. 4th hand COOT and the remedy is to cancel the call. And when the auction gets around to offender to make his first call he instead makes his second call (does something different the second time around). In my book offender is getting twice as many turns as non offenders. Justice (eg. putting the turns into balance) would require offender 'repeat' his canceled call.

This is not about meddling in policy or practice but to point out that an asymptote on the limits of guess is perilous. If it is considered that when a person guesses it typically is not a pure guess but is informed by the biases of the 'guesser'. For instance my Physics professor in optics managed to put me to sleep for half the course during which I took two mid terms consisting of 15 multiple guess Qs (with 5 responses). Outcome: 4 out of 15 on both occasions. the 8 I got right were because I knew the answer. the 22 I got wrong were the guesses. I think that the opportunities talked about in this thread are affected by informed bias.

I think it is improvident to conjecture before knowing the location of the spots. My understanding of 82C is that the <defender's> adjusted score reflects not being subject to lead penalty.

What else is new? I have no directors that don't read TFLB at the appropriate time. Dunk him in boiling oil.

It behooves rule makers that there are distinctions to be coped with: the situation is a lead, playing to the lead, and commands to dummy to participate in the play. When following to a trick, 'play' can be construed in the vein of following suit (as Mycroft pointed out) but when leading, 'play' becomes a command for dummy to participate in the play; similarly, when dummy is void of the suit led, 'play' becomes a command for dummy to participate in the play. It could be said it is unwise to conflate the distinctions. My view is that it is not a good idea for declarer to command dummy to participate in the play due to the fact that being declarer's agent he must then do so: An intentional breach of law which must have disciplinary consequences. My thinking is that the consequence be a penalty** trick from tricks subsequently won on the board. **When a defender exercises his right to designate dummy's card doing so gives inferences to declarer that might be particularly useful. Hence it is better for a brutal penalty to stamp out commands to participate in the play altogether and not have to worry about penalties.

A sign of an experienced player is that he names clearly suit and rank when designating cards; which is a way of saying that he conforms to the law.

A player says an opponent has broken tempo and deceived. In his next breath tells that he was not damaged: " ..it did not matter which card I played." It turns out that he suggests that if he did something different (not that he would have done it) then his opponent just maybe, could possibly, might do something different. Didn't the player moot his own query- his opponent deceived and it did not matter. But, if I were to respond to the summons I first would privately determine exactly what he would do differently and then why; then ask precisely what the deception was with the aim of ascertaining if there was, and if so whether it was improper. The time for other issues is after the hand.

TD error. It seems to me that the TD ought to be ruling upon the validity of player's assertions rather than creating assertions that players should be making.

In bridge what matters is what the players do. What I do is query what the player would have done with only the correct explanation; (definitely) not what he might have done- bridge is not best ball!

As near as I can tell there is my RHO, numerous RHOs, he, partner, opponent. There might be a way to figure what direction they sit, but I suspect not; and I am inclined not to be the one to sort it out.

Results are dubious without agreements to all the actions.

When dealing with rulings, format is important. Dealer and vulnerability should be given; and for calls and plays the direction must be given to avoid giving false information as fact or creating inscrutable information. It is bad form to insert opinions as fact. For instance if the conditions of the deal are no vul, dealer E The auction proceeded: W N E S - P*- 1C- 1S** P- 2C * north's P was OOT and accepted as legal L29A ** told by the director I could not make a bid unless it was less than an opening bid You inserted the opinion ** So far so good. This misinforms the reader. There is no basis in law for such a ruling: given that the POOT was accepted as legal there is no penalty that arises from it. Your learning experience is the importance that the TD recite the law so that the player can know if the TD is making a correct ruling, or, more to the point, is making an incorrect ruling (like here)

Having a notebook and not referring to it during a hand are different things. Prior to my first duplicate it was my considered worry that long practiced partnerships (spouses for instance) had a grossly unfair familiarity (particularly with respect to reading their tells). I quickly put the notion away in regards to unfair familiarity because all familiarity is experience/knowledge, and, rewards so accrued are fair play.

I think that the correct and best view is that it is an irregularity to claim. There is an inference from the rules that it can be possible to determine the outcome by force before T13; further, that there is no harm in doing so as long as it is done perfectly. When not done perfectly great harm is the result. As such, players should not be given permission to claim, but there is a situation which justifies holding them harmless if they do; and correspondingly, the necessity for remedies should they not. As written, following L68-71 is so horrid that no one remedies a disputed claim in faithful accordance with them. In other words, law ought to be written so that the result is satisfactory when followed. And the horrid construction of claim adjudication well justifies fixing- yet since everyone does as they please anyway to what end is there in fixing it?

General Bridge Knowledge is comprised of that which is derivable by theory or general experience that does not depend upon partnership agreement. GBK includes the content of the law and the conditions of the deal; also it is GBK that a player’s and dummy's hands, the vulnerability, who is dealer, the legal auction, the rules of the game, and the opponent's system may, or not, influence the judgment taken in treating the partnership’s method in bidding and playing a hand.

Sky-Blue Book>> and a pause of a notional ten seconds does not constitute unauthorised information.' the Sky-Blue Book quote does not parse to "pauses less than 10sec do not convey UI" It does parse "pauses approximately 10sec do not convey UI", leaving the shadows and penumbras unaddressed.

If the law was concerned with whether a card was exposed accidently the TD would so judge. But the law 24 is not concerned with whether a card was exposed accidentally and so there is no need by law for the TD to so judge; it is concerned about a card being led, or not. And the two are not equivalent. in regard to 'because there is no reference to ' references can be merely a reminder- that is, a provision of law applies when it applies- whether or not there is a reference

I think that the terrain is treacherous. The law does not speak to the TD judging a card a lead. It says 24B: …or is any card prematurely led in other words it was prematurely led or it wasn't. The definitions speak to what is a lead: Lead — the first card played to a trick. Which requires the question, 'was a trick in progress?' and the answer is no- the card was not played to a trick. The definition of trick: Trick — the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead. As such, the ruling turns on the identity of the card- non honor goes to 24A while an honor goes to 24B.