jhenrikj

It hasn't? I can find no mention at all of he being the chairman .... The line above is what the website says, so according to that I think that the commentary is official. It would be very strange to issue a minute saying that something that does not exist should be removed so my guess is that it is removed.

That we all agree on, see my first response to the OP. What we do not agree on is if the opinion that both revokes has to be established is in the laws or not. Ton's opinion, and I agree with him, is that we can't look at 64B to see what happens after the second revoke if that revoke is not established since 64B only applies after established revokes.

According to the WBF website the commentary is issued by WBFLC. It says nowhere it's unoffocial. If the the second revoke is not established you can not apply any part of 64B since it only deals with established revokes.

According to Ton Koiijman both revokes must be established for 64B7 to apply. In this case the revoke was established so the ruling is correct.

I think this situation is perfectly clear in the laws.... a) or b) is the only options available to the declarer and until he has made his choice from these options the defender may not lead. The declarer in OP did not choose from a) or b) since trying to require another suit but the suit of the penalty cards is not an option. So since the declarer has not made a choice from a) or b) the defender may not lead, and since he did he is subject to rectification under Law 49.

Ton Koiijman made this very clear in San Remo. When applying 64C to the second revoke, equity is the result that would have been if the second revoke never took place. It's very easy to realize that this is the correct interpretation. If the declarer doesn't revoke the second time the result will be 10 tricks. After the second revoke the result is 11 tricks. The declarer has gained one trick from the second revoke and that's what 64C must prevent.

I do not see why we should give the offending side the benefit of a doubt by giving them a weighted score.... Law 12B1 The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. By giving a weighted score we do not do that...they keep some of their advantage...

Playing a MP competition you might need 20% the last round to win....by giving false information now you increase your chances of winning because unless the leads are obvious you do not risk that your opps will find the right lead.

A player chooses from two different leads. After making his choice and the dummy is spread it's obvious that the player has been misinformed and that with correct information he might have chosen the other lead. The director awards a weighted score of 60/40 for the "correct" lead... Is it really correct to assign a weighted score in such situations?. The player giving the MI has gained from it. The worst thing that can happened is that the other lead is obvious with correct information and then he has lost nothing compared by giving the correct information. If the lead was not obvious he has made sure that he at least not will pay the full cost of the correct lead. I think that giving weighted scores in such situations is very similar with Reveley rulings. I think that weighted scores should only be given to situations not related to the irregularity. Your opinions?

What do you usually do when the bidding goes pass-pass-pass? East is in 4th hand and may now bid, nothing else to it.

There is no law under which you can force a player to bid over 3♦. We use 27D to adjust the score, nothing else. Now you are talking about applying law 23, that is something completely different. And you can't force a player to bid something there either, you have to let the players play the board and if necessary adjust the score afterwards. You can can never intervene as a TD telling the players what they can bid and not if it's not a rectification from the laws.

This is a simple ruling. South has called out of rotation, accepted by west's pass. East is now to bid after pass-pass-pass. 17E2 does not apply because there has not been a call followed by three passes. The pass card forgotten by east from the last board is not a call made on the next board.

Wbf screen regulations is in force. They say that infringing calls shall be corrected, the question is if it still is concidered an infringing call after the 1S overcall or if the overcall has made the BOT a legal bid.

West is dealer. South opens out of turn with 1H. West overcalls 1S. Now before the tray is passed under the screen director is called. Should this be corrected or is this a legal bidding west accepting the BOT?

This will end up in very strange situations..1♦ - (1♠) - 1♥ corrected to 2♥, now no one, not the NOS, not the OS have the right to use the information that the IB hand has hearts since they received that information from EI....

I don't know, but there are some things agreed to in the WBF-LC minutes that is added to the document, such as the more liberal approach to law 27. On the WBF site it also says that the document is issued by the WBL-LC. It may be written by Ton but it's issued by the WBF-LC and it specifically stated that it is how the laws should be interpreted. My understanding of the English language is that any other interpretation of the laws is wrong.

So what you are saying is: The information from the IB is not UI (because if you say it's UI you are using 16D) But it's not AI since there is no law saying it's AI. So in this case we have information that is somewhere between AI and UI. Please explain to me how this third state of information works.

Which law says that the information from the IB is UI. We have to know if it's AI or UI before we know if 16A1(b) applies or not. Pls quote that law where it says the the information from the IB is UI.

16A1(b) specifically says that authorized information from a withdrawn action is AI. The IB is a withdrawn action. 16D says that normally the information from the withdrawn bid is UI for the OS, but since 16D does not apply we can't say that the information from the IB is UI for the the OS (because then we are applying 16D), then it has to be AI (there is no third state), and therefore it is AI according to 16A1(b).

If you are saying that the information is UI, then you are applying 16D (there is no other law that says that information from the IB is UI). You are not allowed to do that. The only possible outcome is to say that the information from the IB is AI.

The document is handed out on EBL director courses, it's what we are told to apply on these courses. The document is also continuously edited so things the WBF-LC agrees on in their minutes are added to the document.

16A1© says that information arising from legal procedures authorized by the law or regulations is AI. Correcting an UC or IB is such legal procedures.

But now you are not following the instructions given in 27C. 27C says that if the IB is not accepted the director applies the relevant forgoing section to the substitution. The relevant forgoing section is not the entire lawbook before 27C it's 27B. And it does not say may or can, it's a must. You as a director is not allowed not to apply some part of 27B to the IB.

That's exactly what I thought but as usual someone disagrees ;=)

You actually think that the official guide on how to interpret the laws from the WBF LC is wrong? Why don't you just give up and admit you are wrong. This is the law and doing anything else as director is absolutely wrong.