duschek

I know that directors like to rule that certain irrational plays are within the concept of normal plays. I have yet to understand what is achieved by such rulings; in my opinion, they do not count as "necessary in order to rule by Law". In this case, even if declarer has lost track, he knows instinctively that the ace of trumps is high. Regardless what goes on in his mind, it would never occur that declarer would not routinely use the low trump for trick 12. Even allowing for the very wide range of "normal" commonly applied to Law 70 rulings, a play which could never happen can hardly be described as "normal".

Yes, I am confused as well. I - and seemingly others on here - are aware of subsequent advice from the WBFLC to interpret "the same meaning" as "nearly the same meaning". But I confess that I no longer have that release. I think there was a thread on the old site - perhaps someone has a link. See WBF-LC Meeting Minutes from Beijing, bottom of page 2. Apparently, the WBF-LC have worked out that the wording of the Law does not at all behave as intended, but they have no solution to the problem.

And while that may not be everyone's cup of tea, I cannot see passing xx Axx xx KQT9xx, which amounts to 9 HCP, certainly being less than 10 HCP. However - and I do apologise - it seems we are about to hijack a thread in which the OP tried to learn what the rules are, not whether those rules are sensible. Edit: Reading the ACBL regulations quoted by cardsharp makes it clear to me that overcalls on good hands with less than 10 HCP - such as the one I just sketched - are not alertable (fortunately).

To me, this PP seems to be yet another case of "after deliberations we rule no damage, so we throw a PP at them instead for the sake of justice". Certainly, a pair at a WBF event is expected (by the players, not by the laws) to have a clear understanding about a cuebid of a preemptive opening bid, but then, players do forget their agreements from time to time, without the TD/AC having to issue a PP every time. In effect, the AC decision gives players an incentive to call the TD every time there is a misexplanation, so as to inflict PPs on the opponents (which according to this AC should be given whenever a player forgets his agreement). This is not how the game should be played.

Assuming that players are expected to pause for approximately 10 seconds after any skip bid: I concur with the point made that South has provided West with all the time he could expect. In fact, had South passed without thinking, West could only fault his partner for committing an infraction which robbed him of that time. I would allow South some 10-15 seconds if East passes immediately, but West is on his own. I think West has implicitly admitted to a BIT. Why would he come up with this "I am entitled to pause and think" nonsense if he did not pause and think? I agree that a heart is a good lead. But it takes a committee of very strong players to convince me that choosing a heart for the opening lead comes with no logical alternatives. And indeed, "current/former internationals" covers quite a broad range of playing levels (in fact, only East's playing level is relevant). Declarer's guessing wrong in spades is perfectly reasonable. West ponders with just the ♥AKxx in dummy's suit (I am unsure how much was known when West shifted to a spade). Might not the pause indicate the ♠A rather than the ♠Q?

I am afraid that I do not understand what you mean. Could you provide an example to illustrate your point?

I believe that the following statements are valid under WBF rules, assuming no screens: Alerting a double is forbidden. Beginning at opener's second turn to call, alerting calls above 3NT is forbidden. In both cases because the risk of passing unauthorized information is considered greater than the value of being able to discern penalty doubles from other doubles without having to ask. In my view, the do-not-alert-doubles rule should be amended to the effect that artificial doubles of one-level opening bids (except ordinary takeout doubles of one-of-a-suit) should be alerted.

As I am unsure whether there could be similar problems in Danish regulations or practice, could I ask you to unveil the wording of the EBU ex-regulation, and the reasoning that led to the conclusion that it was illegal?

I would not be in doubt that the maximum possible number of tricks should be transferred, i.e., 3 tricks in this case. I actually think we are better off not having this specified in the Laws, unless it can be done without making the text longer than it is now. The potential for ambiguity in this sort of double revoke probably occurs about once every 5-10 years worldwide, so I can live with having to make up the interpretation as outlined to which I think there is really no sensible alternative.

I believe the WBF convention card guidelines specifies writing 4531 for "4 spades, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds, and 1 club", and (4531) for any ordering of suits. Personally, I believe in using as few syntax conventions as possible, so I have decided to stick with that. Certainly, I do not approve of the convention introduced in a Danish book on, erm..., conventions, where 4-5-3-1 means any ordering and 4-5-3-1 (in italics) means specific ordering. That is very hard to recognize when reading printed or on-screen material, and impossible to reproduce in hand-writing. I can hardly imagine that style gaining a large following.

Indeed, the lawmakers not spelling out clearly the proper handling of this situation may lead us to discussing whether "a trick won" includes tricks made during the play and then transferred to the other side. However, it certainly appears that the intention is that in the normal case (one revoke only) you cannot lose tricks made and completed prior to a revoke, so I find it hard to argue against the general intended principle being that you cannot end up with fewer tricks than you made prior to the first revoke. In addition, we might otherwise hear the following conversation: - "Who made trick nine?" - "We did, twice in fact - and the opponents made it minus once!" ... which does not make much sense either. :)

As for the question whether it should be considered slightly offensive to summon the TD, consider this. If you say "I am sorry, I am unsure about the correct procedure in this situation", should you continue: 1) "... so let's ask the TD to make sure that we do not make a mistake", or 2) "... so I'll leave it to you opponents to decide the rules". Somehow, I much prefer the first approach. When somebody learns that the opponents are offended because they think they have the right to define the rules ahead of the TD, that somebody should ask the TD to discuss the matter with the players :lol: As to whether LHO is entitled to know what his partner said: Regardless whether he heard it or not, for UI purposes we will assume any statement from RHO as being heard by LHO. If he is to avoid choosing a logical alternative suggested by UI, obviously he has to know for sure what that UI consists of. So he has to be told now, before his next turn to call.

Suppose that declarer is not aware that the lead is out of turn but would clearly gain from having it rectified. Now dummy can inflict immediate damage on the opponents by blatantly violating a Law. That bothers me! Is this issue well-known, and does anybody know the reasoning behind?

During the play, a defender makes a lead out of turn. "Director!" says dummy. Your ruling? (Dummy has not violated Law 43A2).