jhenrikj

We do random searches. Anyone found with a phone in his pocket is fined 2VP. The main objective is to prevent the players to bring the phone to the bathroom if there are running scores or BBO.

On the contrary, in some competitions we demand phones to be visible all the time (shut off of course).

If they send you specifically to a subsection of a law, why should you go anywhere else? This technique is used in some other places as well when the law says " the lead restrictions in law 26B might apply", this does not mean law 26 applies.

In $2, you do not go to 32A2, you go directly to 32A2(a) or (b). The first lines in 32A2 does not apply when redirected from 32B. What actions your RHO takes is irrelevant.

Swedish regulations says 40% to the side entering the score. 50% to the side accepting the score.

Are you also allowed to consult your notes during play to remember the opening lead?

The same principles is surely not intended, as with many other situations where the screen regulations even contradict the laws. As long as the question itself does not demonstrably suggest a play over another, both the question and the answer is AI, and that's the way the law is intended. If my partnern asks a question about the opponents agreements. I'm allowed to use that information as o unit, both question and answer, instead of having to ask the same question myself.

Lamford... It's only UI when it comes from your partner. But since it's the opponents that are answering the question the answer is AI to both the questioner and his partner.

According to law it's forbidden to write down any notes to aid your memory. So it's against the law to write down the lead before the play is completed. After that it's perfectly ok. So yes, I will tell players writing it down when play starts they are not allowed to do that.

Then you must disable the lead card registration because now you "allow" north to have a written reminder of what the lead card was.

Of course you do not wait until the end of the hand to enter the lead, you enter it when the card is led, but the bridgemate does not say anything until the score is confirmed. And if you don't remember, pick any of the 13 cards from that hand, it not worse than players always entering 2 of diamonds.

The Bridgemate reports if the card entered is impossible when E/W confirmes the score, if it's not a possible lead you will have to go back and change it. If it was a possible lead the score is accepted and if you try to find a particular card you will have a very hard time explaining to the opponents and TD why you did enter the final result before the board was played. So that situation is a non existing problem, what is a very existing problem is that north is able to check what the lead was when declaring if he does not remember., and that might be harder for the opponents to spot.

It's not the infraction that gains, it's subsequent actions. Those actions might be a consequence of the infraction but that is what 10C4 is about. What you are saying is that for instance if my opponents get a MPC, and I choose one of my options and it turns out that another choosing another option might have worked out better I will be able to get an adjustment? We do not need a WBFLC minute for everything. If the members of the WBFLC teach us something at international TD courses then that is how the law is supposed to be applied. And also as other already has pointed out. Law 12B1 does not give you the right to adjust any score. Law 12A gives you the right to adjust the scores when either the law tells you to do that, or when there is no prescribed rectification for an infraction. If there is a prescribed rectification you have to follow that and that you are not allowed to adjust the score that follows as a result of that rectification, unless told so by a specific law. Law 64 is a perfect example on this. You give the penalty tricks under 64B, but you would not be allowed to adjust that score if 64C would not exist. So before you apply 12B you have to check 1. Does the law tell me to give an adjusted score? In this case No. Is there a prescribed rectification. Yes. Are there any specific law that allows me to adjust after the rectification? No there is not. Then no you simply are not allowed to adjust.

First of all, 10C4 applies.: Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C). Second we know what the lawmakers intended since we have asked them and you are definitely not allowed to adjust on the basis of someone being lucky.

In Sweden we do not announce anything at all. At least it's very simple to remember ;-)

On the other hand, I can't find anything in the laws that says I can't do it either, but I do agree with you in principle.

Adjusting the scores in favor of North is really to open a can of worms. Lets assume North did hear and understood the explanation but still decides to pass. If 3NT makes it's fine, if it doesn't he calls for the TD and claims he has been misinformed. East has no evidence to claim what he told north so what we are doing is allowing North change his mind after the board is played. The simple solution is of course to assign a split score of 3NTX to NS and 5C to EW, not saying I can support this decision in the law, but the players will fore sure learn to write/demand explanation in writing the next time.

The classic example is North opens 1♥, east passes, south opens 1♥. Now South can change 1♥ to 2♥ and the bidding continues, the information from the withdrawn 1♥ is AI to north. He should not be told why south bid 1♥ but he is allowed to guess that perhaps south intended to open 1♥so north does not have to treat 2♥ as a single raise.

Not entirely correct. If an IB is not accepted, but an 27B1(a) correction is possible, then law 16D does not apply to the withdrawn bid. The classic example is this... 1♦ - (2♣) - 1NT...corrected to 2NT according to 27B1(a) 1NT shows 6-10, 2NT in this situation is 11-12, the opener has no obligation to bid 3NT with 15 hcp since the information that his partner tried to bid 1NT is AI. But of course 27D applies if there is no other way to end up in 2NT.

Ok, you have 85 A85 T64 K7654, your partner opens 1♦ 11-13NT or 11-16 4+♦, RHO doubles for takeout, you bid 1♠ that is transfer to clubs, LHO doubles for takeout, partner bids 2♠ wich is natural with 4 spades 5+ diamonds, 14-16 hcp. RHO doubles for penalty..now what do you bid? The problem is of course that your partner doesn't alert 1♠, so now 2♠ indicates 11-13 bal with 4 spades. Of course passing 2♠ isn't a logical alternative, but what do you think of bidding 2NT? If partner really has spades and diamonds he might bid 3♦, if we are doubled in 2N I can run in 3♣. To me that is using the UI, to the AC it was fine because when both the opponents bid, partnern might have forgotten the system, and the opponents bidding is AI so regardless of the UI the AC claimed that 2NT was ok...To me, that AC ruling is a breach of 16B1(a), since biddnig 3♦ is a LA, then we cannot allow bidding 2NT to cover up for the possibility that partner forgot the system. The AC did not think 3♦ X down 6 was a fair result so they wanted to allow 2NT because of that.

It's not the same TD who made the ruling that remakes the ruling. If a ruling is overturned by the reviewer the Head TD will do the ruling. The review system is only functioning on large championships with lot of directors. In the EBL there is some of the very best TD's in the World. If 5 of them together, after asking several players and made careful investigations of the facts, how can anyone think that a AC can be more right that this group of TD's? Event today I saw an AC overturning of a TD ruling but the ruling given by the AC broke the law...so I can't understand how anyone can for a minute think that an AC will do a better ruling then the best directors in the world ruling together if those directors use the proper procedure.

So far, after 8 days of play we have had one review...I do not know the outcome of that review. We also had one or a few cases where the head TD has overruled the floor TD's. The players is mostly satisfied with our rulings.

From the WBF LC Minute 2010-10-08 There was a discussion of the definition of a 'logical alternative'. It was agreed that the call actually chosen by a player is normally considered to be among the logical alternatives with respect to the application of Law 16B1. An exception may arise in the case of a call that it would be impossible to contemplate in the particular circumstances. Edit: To slow ;=)

The situation when one card was played and another card dropped simultaneously was on the EBL TD training course last december....the answer was that both cards were played and 58B2 applies. I had a long argument with Ton Koijjman and Maurizio di Sacco about that, not agreeing with them, but apparently that is the way EBL (and at least parts of the WBFLC) want's us to apply the laws in that situation. They were exposed in the action of playing a card. I would guess that when both EBL and EBU gives the same answer to a question, we can be quite sure that that answer also is the one the WBFLC will give. I know that only things published in the WBFLC minutes is law...but when you know what the WBFLC thinks about something even if it's not in the minutes, in my opinion it's wrong to apply the law any other way.

No, 64B only applies to established revokes. You can not apply any part of 64B on an unestablished revoke, and that is what you are trying to do....the second revoke is not established and then you can not apply 64B7 on that revoke....