axman

As I recollect, L54 is prefaced (in order to have effect) that a necessary precondition is that both defenders OL, where only the OOT leader was faced- for the remaining provisions to have effect. IOW as both defenders did not 'lead', when 54 is 'applied' it has no effect (it provides no remedy. And what sanst speaks of is that L56 does provide a remedy. Now, if the WBF wanted some different process, it is odd that they have waited so long to not change the words to obtain that different process.

That assertion is an overbid. I know that I routinely act in such situations with alacrity, and would think that others can as well.

Well, a lot of arrogance goes a long way...but in what direction? There is something to be said for writing in bridge when one does not have command of the tongue of the day; but when it comes to claims, in such a situation best advice is to not claim.

Since the cards were mixed, how does anyone know 'a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.' without knowing the position of all the cards?

It seems to me that the cards having been mixed, there is some question as to the accuracy of an assertion of a revoke.

1N-nc-nc-2H-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P which rule book are you using?

There was a time when the expectation that methods were made available prior to the combat. Notably being considerably easier and quicker to do so by a useful CC. It also being a matter of acumen to assimilate such methods, thus avoiding forfeiture of advantage that accompanies asking questions.

Speaking of SB fuminations, I am reminded of a story predating the time of pocket calculators. A kid had access to his father's mainframe and used it to do his math homework perfectly. The unfairness drew the ire of his classmates. What went unsaid was the countless hours spent doing the programming. The moral being it is a matter of perspective.

neutral score was 70%-30%

L48 (6) A player should not purposely incur a penalty, even though willing to pay it. If a player commits an offense against the ethics or proprieties of the game, and either opponent feels that the interests of his side are prejudiced thereby, he may request a Neutral Score under the provisions of Law No. 22. For intentional or repeated violation, the committee may disqualify or bar offenders from further play, and adjust the score in whatever way it considers equitable.

Actually, in 1933 this provision was present: LAW No.39 Inquiries Regarding Possible Revoke (a) Any player may question any other player as to whether his lead or play constitutes a revoke (except that Dummy may question only De­clarer), but the question or the answer made thereto shall not be deemed to have corrected a revoke otherwise established. (b) Either adversary or Declarer (as the case may be) may demand that a correct card be substituted for the revoking card, in which case the offender is subject to the penalty for a corrected revoke, but not to the penalty for an established revoke. It thus was possible to require the revoke to be corrected. what might be interesting is the effect of not correcting the revoke as required.... since not doing so would be an additional revoke: LAW No.38 Revoke Penalties (a) Corrected revoke by an adversary. Penalty: Declarer may elect (1) to treat the card played in error as exposed, or (2) to require the offender to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led. (b) Corrected revoke by Declarer. Penalty: If the left-hand adversary has played after the revoke, he may require Declarer to play his highest or lowest card of the suit led; no penalty if the left-hand adversary has not played. © Revoke by Dummy, whether corrected or established. No penalty. (d) Established revoke by Declarer or an adversary. Penalty: For the first revoke, two tricks won by the revoking side are surrendered to the other side; ‘for each subsequent revoke by the same side, one trick is so surrendered, except that no transfer of tricks shall include any trick won before the first revoke occurred, nor any trick transferred from the other side in payment of a previous revoke. Penalty tricks are scored exactly as though won in play.

Two infractions by W 1. change of intended call 2. IB 1. not accepting the original 3H cancels the 3H thereby reverting to the insufficient 2H: L25B2 2. 2H not accepted must be made sufficient (due to the canceled 3H must repeat the 3H), and, the pard must pass throughout: L27C. UI and applicable lead penalties accrue.

I would not believe the bit about being protected. After all, they didn't protect anybody but the law breakers when you sought protection....

Hamman tried it against me in the LM pairs and got walloped. The huddle here guaranteed that 3S would do better than Hamman did.

There was a day when by law the expectation was to be informed before the hand what the methods were. As in, complete method. Perhaps that day was prior to the emergence of someone called Meckwell.

Two things to think about as a TD. 1. This adj score business is not well conceived. 2. Just how does one go about ascertaining a player has LOOT prior to issuing a ruling on that basis?

Without knowing who said what and when it was said. The cJ was played first to T4 and then T5. When the cJ is restored to T4, it is T5 that to which no card was played- even though indeed a card was played. Ownership of T4 is determined by the cards played to it (cJ). The remedy is specified by: 67B 3. When the Director determines that the offender did play a card to the trick, but that was not placed among the quitted tricks, the Director finds the card and places it correctly among the offender's played cards. The Director **shall award an adjusted score** if the card was played to a subsequent trick and it is too late to correct the illegal play. But it appears that there was serious TD error involved.

If I have not missed anything, it was agreed that the CJ was first exposed at least 1s after the c8??? For this to have been the case, when the c8 was exposed it was not south's turn to lead. Further, the c8 was a second card by north exposed during the 4th trick.

I think that there is some hyperbole here. My characterization would be that it is somewhat reasonable to tap the table (once) to attempt get declarer to stop POOT. Somewhat, because it can be construed as participating in the play, and therefore requires some care to avoid such construing; besides, 'it's not declarer's turn' is probably best.

It is dubious to believe that the TD was fair, perfectly or otherwise. A concession was made and objected. To be fair the TD must satisfy L71 as well as the rest of TFLB- he did not.

You ought to be cognizant of the connotations attached to ACBL tournament, particularly ACBL TDs. In my earliest years Spider gave the following MI ruling: 'I'm backing up the auction.' 1S-P-4C-P 4S-P Upon which I doubled 4C. Rather than 'backing up the auction' the correct ruling was to cancel the last pass and have the auction proceed from there.

I have some recollection of my inaugural session. I had accumulated a couple dozen hands over the lunch table and read a Goren cheat sheet. It so happened that I fortunately had stumbled into the strongest 45 table game for 5-600 miles. At least half were sharks. I was paired with a Norwegian International. And for all the nervous trepidation it was a good time. But if the TD had said, "This is such a case where I rule differently in 1st and 5th division." it would have been the last session. Actually, it almost was the last session because after the scores were posted what was said was, 'You have a lot of talent.' Which I translated as solicitous manipulation. There is much dignity in being treated as a bridge player; which is lost when treated as a piece of meat.

If your points are valid, and they probably are not valid, maybe you have a case, but maybe you don't. My experience is that most players contemplate after a skip bid, even if they are in second, or third position. But you seem to be neglecting that a key to avoiding/minimizing improper inferences is achieved by consistent tempo. So, there is no 'Not all Jump bids require extra tempo time and some non-Jump bids do'. For instance, I rarely need as much as 2sec after a skip bid, yet I strive to take at least 12sec because my experience supports that when I do then the other players, and that includes RHO, thereafter have a more even tempo- making it more fair for everyone. And, I don't put any stock in there being non jump situations that 'require uneven tempo'. Each player ought to find a cadence that he can maintain most of the time including those 'supposed competitive auctions that need more thought.' If a player needs 9sec then he ought to aim for 9sec- but if he does aim he probably discovers that he rather needs 8sec, then 6sec …. Me, I aim for 1/4sec, but when the system is unfamiliar- half the turns I need as much as 2sec but aim for 5sec so I might be consistent whether in competition or uncontested.

Concerning the TD's bedside manner…. When the TD is not particularly seasoned events might devolve into the players 'suggesting rulings' such as apparently happened here. An air of competence likely heads it off at the pass. If an occasion does devolve, then if it can be explained that such suggestions frequently make the situation worse (as in this case**), and that it is better to wait for a ruling before appealing, things will be better in the short and long run. ** south's interjection conveyed inferences not sanctioned by L73. In making his ruling the TD should recount his finding of facts. For instance- It is agreed that:- 1. West communicated about his spade holding, but not by bidding which infracts L73 2. E communicated interest about west's spade holding, but not by bidding which infracts L73 3. west communicated his count of spades, but not by bidding which infracts L73. These infractions are serious and as provided by L90 EW's score will be reduced one point for each. Those communications are UI and L16 requires a player where inferences from UI that demonstrably suggest an action over another, to take a logical alternative if available. So, the hand shall continue and if at the conclusion NS think that L16 was infracted, call me back and it will be examined and a determination will be made.

If one notes history, the view was that it was good policy to not resume play once a claim has occurred. I can name one compelling reason- the claim must resolve without issue, and once a dispute is raised then claimer has been alerted to the likelihood that he had not been careful enough and from such inferences he is in a position to get the alternatives 'right' so to speak, but in an unfair manner. I can imagine a reason for repudiating that view; and even if it is the best reason available, it at best is unsatisfactory: from time immemorial contestants have ignored the admonition and played on, often to their chagrin. And due to that persistence the idea germinated to placate the malcontents. And realizing the dissonance they drew the line between where the players act solely on their own and the point at which they seek help. And from such a vantage point one might draw the conclusion that if one of the players who wonders if it is ok to play on and seeks the TD out, the TD will say that if you want to know the law, it says that once the TD is involved he will require all disputed claims to be resolved by L70, but if you had not asked and played on without permission then the claim will be treated as if it had not happened. What is problematic concerns the playing on without calling the TD when the of assent of the four players is not gained. Now, that is real mumbo jumbo.