axman

Not saying anything about regulating 10 pt mini roman but mentioning personal observation. In my first KO final pard opened 2D five times holding 10 points on each occasion. This lost a partial swing every time. As expected, it seems that I held too much (yet not enough) of the wrong thing. Those 30 imps were enough to overwhelm our pluses<sigh>.

The law prescribed the rectification of no further rectification.

Well, from the top refers to order. 'Run' refers to the 'progression of turns' encompassed by the number of clubs. It is the progression of turns taken when the instruction 'run the clubs' is given. Run presumes that the first card wins the trick so that the 2nd card wins the trick, etc. It is the formulation of law that says it is a claim of those tricks.

What I said was that when a player says run the clubs, he is foolish to not forthwith name his line of play for the remaining cards. What I pointed out was that according to law 'run the clubs' is a claim of those club tricks. That according to law once a claim occurs……..

As I said, run the clubs can be part of a claim, or its entirety.

I suspect that you are referring to this provision: 68A. Claim Defined Any statement by declarer or a defender to the effect that a side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Now consider 'run the clubs.' The nature of the statement imputes from the top. 'run' has the effect of asserting that each club will win its trick; thus the quantity of clubs is a specific number of tricks asserted to be won. That comports with a claim of those tricks as provided by 68A. It is notable 68A does not specify that the claiming of tricks must encompass all of the remaining cards (your (incorrect) inference being that not encompassing all of the remaining cards forecloses the action from being a claim). Taken together, run the clubs is a claim of those tricks; and being that a claim was made it behooves one to clarify the line of play for all of the remaining cards forthwith.

An objection is declaratory. Is that what west did? No, west spoke an interrogatory seeking information. Thus, any objection made was not immediately.

There is no parsing of 64C2a that says If X occurs then adj score = F(X). What it does say is If X then 12C1b.

Concur. Thanx.

64C2a does not give the specification for an adjusted score, 12C1b gives the specification. 64C2a does define when 12C1b is invoked.

Such a parsing does not accord with the law and implies that that the law is rewritten without approval of the Executive. But the law was not thus rewritten when it was amended in 2017 as it contains no such words (and being approved by the Executive). In the current instance: 64C2a requires an adjusted score if more tricks were likely if some number of revokes had not occurred. This occurred here- upon the claim declarer is worth 8 tricks while absent a revoke it is likely he would take 10. Thus an adjusted score. 12C1b requires (b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred. It is clear that declarer ought to take 10 tricks absent the revokes which thus is the proper adjusted score. However, there is a strong case that had declarer drawn timely attention to the second revoke then (instead of an adjusted score) he ought to have been entitled to the score for dropping the Q under the ace whether or not E corrected that revoke.

I think it would help the players the most that they understand irregularities that do not cross the screen, and the forfeiture provisions of calling attention to UI created on their own side of the screen. perhaps a ten minute lecture an hour before the first session?

>> I felt that if *I* wouldn't do anything I can't ask, because the only reason to ask would be to help my partner It is a matter of propriety to avoid creating problems. I think that this is the right approach. It is also the right approach to notice the CC to avoid the need for asking- for the same reason. imo the TD reasoning is rubbish.

As I said before, there is a line not in conflict with line stated that makes the above dubious.

A declarer with good sense would trump a heart with the T, lead a trump to his hand, then close his eyes and ask an opponent to pick a card to lead next. A defender with good sense would like the idea of declarer first playing two rounds of trump.

TFLB does define 'trick' but not 'complete trick'. Nor does it define a trick as complete upon quitting the cards. But it does define when cards played to a trick are to be quitted and it does so in such a way that if a player wants to contemplate so as to avoid pausing after the start of a future trick... he needs to grasp the card and take a long time quitting it.

It occurs to me that while it is improper to contemplate which card would have a desired deceptive effect, that contemplating which card gives the correct signal is proper when there is such a distinction.

Many folks tend to think of fair play as: I give you one point today and expect 100 points tomorrow. Such an occurrence took place at the '99 team trials and much hatred resulted. There is a legitimate reason to play small- dropping the ace stiff. So, an incontrovertible standard would not be met. The reason for alternating turns is to allocate them 'fairly'; so, to give a player an unfair number of turns ought to require some extraordinary circumstance like it cannot be avoided (for instance a remedy for an infraction) or when it strongly appears that only one turn was taken (insta correction).

Two of the things that particularly easy to adapt for online is a timestamp and unobtrusive smoothing of an individual's tempo. Smoothing tempo can be done with a simple algorithm that progressively measures how long a player takes, recalculates what his good** tempo is and holds his call or play when made early. A subroutine can create a report that can be analyzed for performance. ** good tempo as in the time that he comfortably maintains (not average tempo)

Don't know what your antecedents are. It is notable that if by some route that the OLOOT is rejected 57C3 makes it clear that the subsequent OOT play performs the function of lead. It also is notable that knowing both of declaring side's cards the only possible gain to the defenders to rejecting the lead is when it is important to declarer's RHO which card the LHO plays first.

My impression is that 60C requires that 57C3 is relevant (declarer's OOT play subsequent to the LOOT stands- without regard** to what happens to the LOOT). ** where correcting a revoke is concerned it is not a matter of the TD cancelling the card because it is a matter of the player substituting a card

you are recollecting 1997WBF25B. I suppose that I was the very first in America to suffer at the hands of this abomination in a tournament- May 30, 1997

I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).

I think you are a bit fast on the trigger. Offender's X being canceled he is obligated to substitute a legal call, which can be a pass yet need not be. I suspect that UI considerations can be a factor, but as you point out in the case of pass would not.

Indeed. That is my point as well. Allow me to elaborate in this way. For the purpose of reasoning, contemplate A, B,C all comparable calls. Further A is not equivalent to either B nor C; B is not equivalent to either A nor C; C is not equivalent to either A nor B. Repeating. A, B, C being comparable are equivalent because by law they substitute without gain. And as you point out that reasoning is rubbish, and as I point out that is what the law is: substitute the three bullet points of L23 for A,B,C. QED As for your antecedent regarding 23A2: The author made an assertion as to what constituted a subset. I do not know if he was asserting how to untangle L23, but what I was doing was responding to his use of subset. I think I can see my way to making sense of 'possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call defining a set' but not 'a call defining a subset of possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call ' To that end, I once had the epiphany of using Google to find such a usage. Six hours later I had the epiphany to never try it again. I guess I can't figure out how a call defines a subset of meanings. Now Richard Hills is a meticulous guy who meticulously proofed WBF2017. Perhaps he knows the meaning of the L23 language.