jhenrikj

Have you ever seen any director including the lawmakers applying 57 to a Loot? You do realize that with your interpretation you have to apply law 57 after all leads since alls leads are made before his partner had played to that trick and thus must be premature. You are just plain wrong Lamford.

Lamford, pls explain to us how you apply 57 after a Loot?

No, law 24 applies, there is no reference to 57 in 24. The led club is a penalty card and has to be led (again).

Don't you have to pre-alert some things in ACBL?

So if South holds 20hcp you think playing in 2NT is good for them? You have to show that north knows playing in 2NT will be favourable, not that it might be. Move all west`s hcp to south, do you want to play 2NT now?

If you choose the second option the result has no value what so ever since that does not simulate the position the player is in. The pollees must be put in the same situation. What several individual players think is something you can use, what a group of players think together is of no use at all.

Or not a part of a claim at all. The play does not stop when someone says "Run the clubs". Assume dummy is xxx xx xxx AKQJT and the declarer has singleton club in a NT and a club is led. The Declarer now says "Run the clubs" you are saying that the play is suspended and declarer as conceded the rest even if declarer has AKxx AKxx Axxx x? The correct answer of course is that after 5 rounds of clubs the play continues as normal.

You are supposed to put the pollee in the same situation as the player. In how many situations is a player allowed to discuss his options with 5 experts before he makes his choice? We are not interested on knowing what the best/correct answer to the problem is. You are looking for the wrong information. We are only interested on what individuals think is the right answer, by putting them together in a group you have destroyed every possibility to find that out.

But that is exactly the opposite of what we want. That's why it's so important to poll players separately so that they have no chance whatsoever to influence each other.

No not normally, the declarer is not suggesting the play to be curtailed. He is intending the play to continue after this tricks.

Never actually heard anywhere where a LA is 1/6. Normally it takes more than 1/5 to be considered an LA. So if you ask 5, 1 must choose it and at least 2 more or even perhaps 3 must consider (or 2 choose it) it to become a LA. If the ruling is close (say you have 1 choosing it and 2 more considering it out of 5), you simply poll 1 or 2 more. I think you got the 1/6 from the old 12C1© where the offending side would get the most unfavorable possible and the offending side the most favorable probable score. Worst possible was 1/6 best probable was 1/3. I'm absolutely sure that the last option with 5 TD's deciding will by far get the most incorrect rulings.

Whats wrong with it is that everyone can tell why the hand after the skipbid waited. If he calls at once after the card was removed he was only waiting , if he takes his 10 seconds he is thinking, if he thinks for a few more seconds after 10 he is thinking. If the player after the skipbid is resonsible for the time you should not be able to tell the difference in any of the above situation (yes I know most players will give it away).

Which means that the next player still has to keep teack of time because if the stopcard is removed to soon and the next player calls immidiatly everyone knows he was just waiting for the card to be removed. No one should be able to tell when the next player thinks 10 seconds has elapsed. He is the only one who can decide when to bid. And if he need two extra seconds when the card is removed that can under no circumstances be UI because you should not be able to tell if he just counted the seconds slowly or actually was thinking. So if the card is removed after 8 seconds and I bid after 12 that is clearly UI only created by the skipbidder. If the card is removed at once and the next player is responsible to time the pause 12 seconds is never UI. To sum it up. Card removed before 10 seconds, next player bids at once, the skipbidder has created UI Card removed to soon, next player bids in a few seconds, the skipbidder has created UI. Card removed at exactly 10 seconds, next player bids after 2-3 more seconds, the skipbidder has created UI.

I've said it before, but having the skipbidder in charge of the tempo is completely crazy. That gives the skipbidder the option to create UI for the other side.

Eh, what? 2♣ was insufficient, it was prematurely replaced by 2NT, 2NT is not a comparable call, nor does 27B1(a) apply so South is barred for the rest of the auction (when east decided not to accept 2♣). So 2NT down one.

If he has played a card he has played a card. Its not even remotly the same situation. I've actually have had exactly that ruling.

Its all about the players intent. If his intention was to tell the declarer the defence gets a trick for the queen of spades then it's a claim. It does not matter if he says I have or I get, the reason why he says it is the same. We've had another discussion about a player deliberately played the Ace and king of spades together on the opening lead vs 6NTX. That is also a claim and not simultaneous played cards because his intention was to show he had two tricks at once. Lets assume there are KJ in dummy, the declarer plays a small and the defender sitting behind KJ shows AQ before anyone has played anything. Are you going to argue they are both penalty cards now so that the declarer can force the queen to be played under the king or are you going to accept this as a claim?

Of course it's a claim. A player claims when he suggests the play is curtailed and that is what he did by telling the declarer he has the queen of spades.

No, 69B applies when you assent to an opponents claim or consession. In this case you want to cancel your own side's concession so then 71 applies.

How? The score would still be adjusted to 12 tricks.

The declaring side opened the screen. The offender's screenmate is on the declaring side.

Good luck, and if you need it, search for jhenrikj on facebook. I had a few thousand deals with screens now so I have some basic knowledge at least.

One thing is sure...When you get a MI ruling you will soon realize, this post should not be in the simple ruling section :)

What would the effect be with the Norwegian regulation if the stop card is removed after 8 seconds and the next player calls 5 seconds later? Or if the stop card is removed after 5 seconds and the next player calls 5 seconds later, or if the stop card is removed after 5 seconds and the next player calls at once? The two first situations is not suppose to render any UI, the last one might be. The most important thing is that you should never be able to tell if the player is still thinking or not if the stop card is removed to soon. That's why the responsibility for keeping time should be on the player making the next call since he still is responsible to think for a total of 10 seconds even if the stop card is removed after 5.

Does no one read law 70A before dealing with a contested claim? In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. Everyone is trying to construct the most absurd possibilities where the defender will win the maximum amount of tricks even if that play would never ever take place in real play. That is very far from adjucating the result as equitable as possible for both sides.