axman

Given the clarification perhaps the issue concerns a case where claimer could not help to not lose to a singleton Q (3-1 break). It seems to me that such a case would arise if the lead was in a particular hand with no entry to the other hand outside of the suit of concern, ANd the stiff Q is underneath such holding.

I think that it is one thing to willingly invite the opponents to break the rules in the name of accommodation and quite something else to be coerced to do so. As for the entire field joining in the willingness……? Look at it this way: A duplicate contest is a matter of duplicated conditions from which comparisons arise. Inserting a pair that is unable to perform the required tasks imposes a requirement that the conditions of play are not duplicated. As an example in the instant case. Apparently a person 'is disconcerted by his own stuttering'. The dictionary suggests the proximate cause is brain damage. What accommodation ought to be made? It seems to me that the price of admission- burden of accommodation- ought to fall primarily upon the person. But in what form? I would think that a well formulated convention card is mandatory with the prescription that it be supplied to both opponents who are 'required to use it in place of asking questions'. A note regarding L20F1. The provision is targeted for the instance where the proper player to respond has forgotten his method; that the law does not limit the discretion leaves open opportunities for being creative.

Consider: F. Hand from the Wrong Board: If it is discovered that a contestant’s hand is not from the current board the error is corrected. If he had made no call then play proceeds normally. However, if he had made a call based on the hand from the wrong board 1. No Subsequent Call: if there was no subsequent call, the director shall cancel the call and the auction shall continue normally from that point. Further, the board of the incorrect hand will be unplayable for these contestants that are scheduled to play it later. 2. Subsequent Call: and there was a subsequent call, the board of the incorrect hand will be unplayable for these contestants that are scheduled to play it later; the director shall ensure that the proper hand is in play a. Board Playable: and provided that no card had been played from the hand, the auction and play shall continue. However, if a card had been played from the hand 1. with no subsequent play then offender contributes a card and play continues normally; (or) 2. with subsequent play not beyond the first trick, then offender plays from the correct hand (and if different from the withdrawn card the opponents may correct their play in accordance with L47E) and then play continues normally. 3. where there was play subsequent the first trick offender substitutes the same card from the correct hand for each withdrawn card and play continues normally (but if unable to do so see L13F2b). b. Board Unplayable: and if a card from the incorrect hand had been played such that it cannot be played from the correct hand the board is unplayable for these contestants. The subject TD's ruling comports with the F2a3 but does not comport with the WBF: LAW 15 - WRONG BOARD OR HAND A. Cards from Wrong Board 1. A call is cancelled (together with any subsequent call) if it is made by a player holding cards that he has picked up from a wrong board. 2. (a) If the offender’s partner has subsequently called, the Director shall award an adjusted score. Where L15A1 requires that player's calls be cancelled and L15A2a an adjusted score <artificial as the board is unplayable>.

please scan at 300 dpi. thanx

My point was that E does not know what suit will be led to T2; and he employs a play convention.

One of the things that E ought to do is to know which card goes on the spade trick.....before quitting T1. Of the things that declarer ought not get bent out of shape over is when a situation has more than one valid explanation for a variation of tempo.

I would believe that 67B3 is applied because the conditions specified exist. Apparently, the adjusted score Must be artificial since the law Prohibits contributing a card to the mysterious T8.

Inferences largely depend upon one's methods as well as the agreement to every action, regardless of which side acted; further, the presence and absence of mannerisms can be material.

The thing about treating the stated line as if it were a contract for specific performance is that there are times when claimer ends up with fewer tricks than were claimed, but more tricks than if he had not claimed.

After some consideration, I concluded that it is better to say 'play west for the HK' rather than 'finesse the T'. As I learned that 'finesse the T' means play the T while the previous leaves no ambiguity that you are waiting for west to 'play' his king if he has it before using the ace. To clarify a bit further, the proper usage of 'finesse the T' is say it after west has played.

THe entire point of a claim is that it implies absolutely nothing.

As a sponsoring organization, a club is enpowered to publish regulations that are not in conflict with law. What is difficult is crafting regulations that are suitable (accomplish desirable things with the minimum of fuss). I discourage regulations that cause undesirable things. I for one would like a copy of such a regulation for a time that would be provident, should you craft one. I point out that the regulation must be posted and known, as failure to do so causes great consternation (of which I have immense personal experience).

A better resolution is to restrict the right to select the penalty to the player next in clockwise rotation. The reasons this is correct include 1. giving both opponents the ability to choose establishes that the penalty is a collaboration which entails communication between partners other than by call or play: a conflict with L73 2. allowing the RHO to select entails communication (I Have A Reason Pard) between partners other than by call or play. Notably, allowing RHO to select, effectively compounds the opponent's infraction of communicating OOT by communicating OOT themselves. As for the consequence of RHO selecting the penalty in spite of the constraint? When the penalty is to accept the POOT require the person selecting the penalty to play a card, even if OOT and subject to penalty. This should be incentive to RHO to keep his mouth shut. As for 'It might occasionally put the player next in turn in a difficult spot,…' players all the time have to answer the question, 'what do I do now?' all the time when it has an effect upon trying to get a fortuitous outcome. Such a position is not really such a strain.

Paying attention to what was said: Is there a way to lose a D? ....at the end? yes- discard Ds on hearts. This necessarily is what was claimed. To demonstrate the power of the words 'not discarding diamonds' consider the difficulty in losing a diamond by legal means. I recollect a similar instance (that after reconsideration) I got wrong as a playing director. With half the tricks left I conceded two tricks from dummy's KJ<x> where x must be pitched. LHO piped up accepting only one of them since he held AQT. I ruled that I would consider his position. I fell into Gordon's entanglement and could not visualize any sane way to not play low under the ace nor not cover an honor; after an hour notified LHO his position was accepted. Some years later I realized that it had not occurred to me to investigate if there was a possibility of being locked in dummy at the end.

my understanding of normal play is that the board proceeds via bidding/play to scoring in accordance with law. iow when an infraction occurs where no remedy in law permits the playing of cards to proceed, the board can no longer be played normally.

Some embellishment. West was aware of the ramifications of the COOT, in particular that doubled undertricks can be at stake if his partner does not find a suitable place to land. Notably the table score has everything to do with W's judgment which leaves little for the effect of the infraction.

WHat has occurred to me is that an OLOOT (for instance, accepted) w©ould be 'misconstrued' by the computer to be from the 'wrong hand'.

I have seen bridgemate discussions where posting an incorrect OL can be used to find out if leader has, or has not, a particular card.

I am not inclined to figure out the antecedents- but it does appear that there are self contradictions (above).

It probably is not germane, but when there is a left over card at the end of play because it was not contributed to one of the tricks, for the trick missing a card (at the time the trick was created) the player’s hand either contained a card that would follow suit or did not. And, if it did not have a card that would follow suit at the time- had he played to the trick it would not have been a revoke. Then, under what justification (other than a decrepit law) should he be subject to paying a revoke penalty when the defective trick is corrected?

The effect of a claim is to fix the play of the remaining cards. In this case the claim occurred prior to identifying the presence of a defective trick and thus must be adjudicated first in order to determine the leftover card. As such, the leftover card from the (adjudicated) claim is contributed to the defective trick in accordance with L67.

no and no.

I'm at a loss as to what 'That would solve a lot of these problems.' means. Am I crazy to believe that first and foremost, law's purpose is to provide solutions to players' problems. And what you appear to be talking about is giving infractors two or three turns to one for the non-infractors.

I would read 27B1a more closely: "...specifies the same denomination(S) as that specified by the withdrawn call,.." if a single call specifies several denominationS it is not equivalent to say that it specifies but one denomination.

In order for L54 to be relevant, N needed to have (also) led face down. North did not do so, therefore L54 is not reached. As to the end of the auction period, that would be irrelevant since the lead starts the play period irrevocably- whether or not the auction period had ended.