axman

A 4 card suit can be described as a 3 card suit with a fourth card. By my reckoning there are four 3 card combinations that can be formed starting from a 4 card suit. Thus there exist formulations of three cards that are a subset of a 4 card suit. You asserted 'A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit…' and seeing that difference from the above it is difficult to visualize the point of reasoning based upon such a premise.

A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit, I agree; I am curious. You find all of the three card suits and line them up as a set. Will you please show me a four card suit that is a subset?

1. the board should not be changed** until after the score has been recorded and approved. Perhaps this will avoid the problem. 2. not withstanding the above, my policy is that I never participate in an auction until it appears that all the players are on the ready. Translation- if there is something more*** important like eating supper, going to the john, recounting the lowlights of the last three vacations- you are going nowhere fast anyway. Allowing others to get it out of their system without interruption produces several kinds of good outcomes a. auctions lake less time than the alternative b. considerably less tempo problems c. fewer MI problems. 3. I have found that getting the TD involved immediately for preventative purposes has a lot of downside since they tend to not be very competent in these matters ** the markings on the board control the board, thus complete scoring before changing boards to avoid errors *** as for players that are discourteously infantile, there is some uncomfortable pressure that comes from no action- once a miscreant realizes (on their own) that nothing will happen until they are paying attention, there is a tendency to pay attention sooner.

Last time I checked, at T7 most players start with 7 cards????

A couple decades ago south summoned claiming damage. It seems that EW were bidding spades and NS were bidding hearts and that NS were given MI. After seeing that the information was corrected I consulted with north then south away from the table. I asked,'what would you have done differently?' she started, 'I might have ….' At which point I corrected, 'What would you have done?' She (wanted a double shot at 5H is what she wanted) hemmed and hawed for over four minutes and confessed she would not have done differently. My view was that the damage from the MI was S was misled into not bidding 5H- which was why I wanted to know what she would have done differently. Actually, I was looking forward to the warm feeling from adjusting the score to 5HX. Lo, except for south delaying the game 5 minutes Solomon successfully split the baby and south didn't get the score she richly deserved.

As the law sits, this situation creates two extra turns for the OS (the 'OOT' correction by revoker and an 'OOT' change of play by revoker's partner) where revoker thus gains such information as well as the card of the NOS before choosing his revoke correction. The appropriate remedy is to prevent where practical the OS from gaining such turns. And to some extent it is practical: a. the NOS can affect revoker's correction thereby eliminating the gain of that extra turn and b. by making revoker's partner original card stand as played to eliminate revoker's partner from that extra turn This approach removes Thought Crime from the menu and avoids presenting an ethics problem to revoker's correction.

You have noticed a defect in the revoke correction procedure. Namely, offender can learn of cards before his correction (the Alcatraz Coup condition). It does not seem cricket that the offending side can get two extra turns rather than suffer the effects of L57A.

As a preemptive approach, If the problem persists, one answer is at the start of the game to reduce the number of boards where there is the expectation of successful completion.

Might read through L67.

I would not be so sure that compulsion is the appropriate metric. Good regulation facilitates, the nanny state rarely is good regulation. As such, it's a decent idea that if nit picking is to be the rule, there'd better be good reason for it.

Memories of my first tournament event emerge. After some pause, pard meekly says 3N (with cards a little sparse for the action) closing the bids. The defense is withering, but sufficient that 3N makes. At this time I start recording the contract and the opponents become vociferous that it was 2N. The TD rules 3N after listening to whatever was said. Appeal! A most miserable 3 hours ensued. Contemporaneous records perhaps would have avoided the conflagration.

Actually, I am working on the efficacy of a solution for the UI of penalty cards.

Well, I have. To which I say that the work was not enough, nor of the right nature.

I thought you said, 'Most players are woefully arrogant ' :)

I would think that if anything, a skip bid warning has an effect similar to the effect of summoning the TD: take no action until... and...a consequence of taking action prior to until...

To East: It sounds like you noticed that the exposed card was 2H while pulling the cards from the BB. What I do is to say immediately, 'Not this' while placing the stack on the table- then forthwith correcting the action. This always resolved the matter favorably.

It occurs to me that it is possible to respond accurately** as to what a calls means even when there is no agreement/system as to a call. Hence, the formulation of a question takes on the destructive powers of a weapon. **the same can be said about inaccurately axman

I doubt that I am in your experience. I do not attempt to 'mentally' keep track of the length of my pause. I do aim for a 12 sec pause (my experience is that it has the effect of reducing dramatically the length of the pauses of the other three). Thus I am usually at least 10 sec and rarely as much as 15 sec. It can be said that my skip bid pause does not burden me while benefitting all the players.

It has occurred to me that phrases such as 'and again' when used as an instruction to dummy can be construed to instruct dummy to utilize judgment; in other words, can be used as a clever method of inviting dummy to participate in the play. Notably, that would be like telling dummy to do that which he is required to refrain from. And that is not a good thing. This suggests that use of 'and again' be avoided. Words like high, low, top, bottom... are definitive and hence are useful euphemisms while the former is not. Bridge offers plenty of opportunities for controversy without needlessly tossing grenades.

The EW agreement to 3C was majors, and the NS agreement which is conditioned upon the EW agreement N's X was clubs. axman

As described, pard can immediately call the TD upon which all action must stop. The revoke thus is not yet established. When the TD arrives he is told that on the previous trick a discard was made when having a card. At this point, the revoke must be corrected and the TD tells what to do. the critical point being that establishment occurs upon the offending side 'playing' to a subsequent trick.

Rephrasing the law has merits. Rephrasing that way manifests a different nonsense.

L54: When an opening lead out of turn is faced and offender’s partner leads face down, the director requires the face down lead to be retracted. Also: As noted before, L54 text controls 54ABCDE. The conditions of that control are a faced OLOOT AND offender's partner also leads face down. Without both conditions the law requires 'to look' elsewhere for a remedy, if any, as dictated by 81B2.

Which likely was so thirty years ago; yet today it is not necessarily so when ruling in accordance with law.

It is not a matter of L56 instead; it is a matter of both. It is not fair to assume that the present wording of Law 54 is to confirm that all parts of this law apply whenever there is a faced opening lead out of turn whether or not a correct opening lead has simultaneously been attempted face down- as the words do not support that kind of assuming. The WBF has been satisfied for decades with the language of L54; the effect of which being that it does not supply remedies to an OLOOT which is not accompanied by a face down lead by offender's partner. Perhaps it needs to be pointed out that an OLOOT is a POOT and that L56 deals with LOOT and L53 deals with POOT. Another way to say it is that an OLOOT that is not remedied by L54 would fall under L56 (not very well… being an understatement).