jhenrikj

I asked one of the top directors of WBF about a very similar situation. East plays a diamond, south (dummy) follows suit, west ruffs (revoke), north overruffs (revoke), north claims. East does not accept the claim since he spotted north's revoke, and at the same time west discovers that he also revoked. Now we have the same situation, North has established his own revoke, west's revoke is not yet established. The answer I got was that west of course may/must correct his revoke, then north also may change his card (62C1 overrules 63B) but the fact that there has been an established revoke does not change, so in the end we apply 64A on north's established revoke. The winner of the trick is whoever won the trick after west and north has corrected their played cards. There has been a clarification on every EBL TD course that 64B7 ONLY applies when there has been established revokes by both sides. If there is one established revoke and the other side make a revoke that is corrected, 64B7 does not apply. I know that you in the ACBL probably do not agree with that (and probably those of you not attending the EBL TD courses as well), but that is how the law is interpreted in the EBL and by the European members of WBFLC that I've spoken with. Of course it's a well known fact that the members of WBFLC often disagree, but I've learnt that it's best to follow the interpretation of those who corrects my TD exams ;;)

If the scenario benlessard described above, west has not played a card from his hand... If west had taken the card from the dummy and put it in his hand and then played it, yes then you are right, but if it was as benlessard thought, then law 67 for sure must apply. EDIT: By definition a "Hand" is the cards originally dealt to a player, or the remaining portion thereof. If a player picks up a surplus card during the play not originally in his hand, that card does not belong to his hand. If it does not belong to his hand, then it's not a played card since law 45A says that you have to detach card from your hand, and you have not done that if you detach a card not belong to your hand. So, still west has not played a card to that trick and then law 67 does apply...

Why don't we just use law 67? Since the player took a card from dummy and put among his played cards he has not played a card to that trick....

This was handled in the EBL TD Course in San Remo. Bidding cards from the previous board still laying on the table is not bids that have been made on the present board. Karl is right....we end up in exact the same situation as if the bidding went Pass - (skipped) - Pass - Pass....

2 years ago our CTD in the Swedish summer festival was called to the table to handle a call out of rotation. When he reached for the lawbook in his pocket the little old lady told him that he better go get another director who knows things without having to use the book ;=)

If south should have 12 hcp and 2245 distribution, the TD should never allow a 25A correction, how to know without looking at the cards? In general, looking at the cards should be avoided but when applying 25A we have to do it because we have to be convinced that the player did not change his mind and with my example above no one can convince me that he did want to use stayman and not that he was opening 1C. This is how Ton Koiijman recommends us to apply 25A and even though the document may not be an official WBFLC release, Ton still knows a thing or two about the laws.

As a qualified director you should also know that you never ever decide upon a 25A/27 ruling at the table. You take the player away from the table and asks him a few questions. If you feel it necessary you also can look at the cards. When you return to the table nobody knows what facts made you come to your decision so there is no way the board becomes unplayable...

In what law do you find that? There is nothing about acting surprised or anything like that, the only thing the law says is that the player must attempt to change the call without pause for thought. In case 1 and 3 the player tried to change or expressed the will to change the call as soon he found out about it so 25A could be applied in any of those cases. In the 2nd case it's more difficult but the player might just wait for the director to arrive as the player is supposed to do according to 9B. The problem in the OP I think is that the unintended bid also is insufficient, and because it is insufficient 27 prevails over 25A, but that is not the case. A call is not insufficient unless intended. In my opinion, many directors rule way to hard in the 25A cases. We have a mechanical error, the error contains no extra information of any kind, if it's possible to make the change and we are convinced that it really is unintended, let them change even if it took them a split second to understand what had happened. We want to play bridge, not punish players for making mechanical errors out of their control. Forcing players to make bids they never intended does only destroy the game for everyone. The key point here is that an unintended call carries no information so there is no problem with UI at all.

Thanks

The main question remains, are both pairs in a team game considered stationary or not?

Of course any player who takes the wrong cards out of the board is an offender, but the current law can be interpreted as EW are primarily responsible for the boards being correctly orientated. If anyone is primarily responsible you can't penalize someone else for the irregularity without penalizing those who have the main responsibility, can you? If so, being primarily responsible have no meaning at all. I want to be able to penalize the offender only if one side is clearly at fault, but the law does not allow me to to that if both sides are considered being primarily responsible.

That was changed in the 1997 laws.... But the interpretation thar both is at fault is ridiculous. Lets assume we are playing a 64 board match divided into 4 stanzas of 16 boards (the definition states, each such stanza is one session ). After 12 boards, east goes to the bathroom, west takes the opportunity to go and get some coffee. When EW return they find that north has put the next board on the table incorrectly orientated and look at east cards. Now EW get penalized -1VP for this, does this seem reasonable?

The problem arises by reading 7D literally. Since both pairs remain at the table the entire session, both pairs are primarily responsible, This means that when North puts the board on the table incorrectly orientated and after that north takes east cards and looks at them, if we are going to penalize a pair now we have to penalize EW as well since they are primarily responsible for the board being placed correctly orientated. I don't like that interpretation. We would be much better off if we decided that, as in pair tournaments where both pairs at a table is moving, no pair is primarily responsible in a team game (or that we could write a regulation deciding who is responsible). Now we can penalize the offending side only, this feels much better.

Law 7 D says... What is "proper conditions of play" exactly? Does this include who is putting the boards on the table? In a Swiss team event, each match is one session. This means that both pairs at the table remain at the table throughout a session. Now, who is primarily responsible? Both? No one? Can we really have two pairs both being primarily responsible?

If it was a mispull, the alert does not matter. You are allowed to use ANY information to find out that you have mispulled, even information that normally is UI. There is a new footnote to law 25 that says exactly this.

Failure to play a penalty card can not be a revoke, even if it fits the definition in 61A. A revoke must be corrected if noticed before it is a established. A player failing to play a penalty card may not try to change it, so it can't be a revoke. The wording in 52 makes it impossible. We just have to accept that if a card is a penalty card, the only laws that applies to that card is the laws about penalty cards and no other.

Since the pass is not a call made it contains no information. But the knowledge that partner thought you had passed before he overcalled is UI to you, the fact that you did not pass is AI to your partner (he does not have to bid as if you were a passed hand).

We had this problem during simulations in the EBL TD course in San Remo. The correct answer was that the pass is not a call made. The 1C opening is BOOT, accepted by the overcall so the bidding just continues.

In the WBFLC minute quoted above, the information that is UI is the information from the withdrawn call from LHO of the uninteded call to the side who made the unintended call.

I've asked two EBL Chief TD's and one Assistent Chief TD about this and they all agreed that we always allow 25A substitution if the conditions in 25A are met no matter how the player was made aware of his misbid. One of the two CTD's is also a member of WBFLC. So if the knowledge that you have made an unintended call is AI (as it must be since we are allowed to use it) before partner has bid, it must be AI also after partner has bid.

Lets apply this logic to 26B It says nothing about that we may not choose to require any lead, does that mean that we can do that? I think that when we have a list of what we may do, that is the only thing we may do.

But if all forms of deceptions is ok (excpet for those mentioned in 73D), why do we need a law that specifies some that is ok?

73E anyone? It's allowed to deceive a player by a call or play....but that should mean that all other types of deceptions is not allowed. If all types of deceptions is allowed then we need no 73F so there must be a reason why only some methods of deception is mentioned there...

What you say is that if I in T2 revokes in spades, but corrects it at once and then in T3 once again revokes in spades, this time it becomes established, there is no rectification for the second revoke because it's a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player? The main thing here is to understand that all revokes mentioned under law64 are established revokes. The word "revoke" in law 64 is the equivalent to "established revoke" since law 64 exclusively deals with established revokes. The other logical way to look at it is that after an unestablished revoke is corrected, that player has no longer revoked because a revoke is "not following suit" and after the correction the player has followed suit, so he has not longer revoked.

No, since the first revokes are not established the last revoke will be rectified. Only when both sides have established revokes 64B7 applies.