JeremyChild

About

Username
JeremyChild
Joined
Visits
2,053
Last Active
Roles
Member

Comments

  • I think there is confusion about the meaning of supersedes here. The term Supersede is used only in Laws 18 and 19, and then with different meanings, neither of which are the true English meaning (replace, supplant). In law 18, the term Supersede,…
  • In principle I like the "worst possible outcome" idea, although I might amend it to "the opposition can determine the play of the cards", removing any onus on the director. My objection to this idea is that for very good reasons we encourage people…
  • I too have struggled with applying law 25A1, and I think there is some inconsistency between the law book, the white book and the commentary. 25A1 is quite clear, the issue is around the meaning of intended. Suppose I intend to bid 4H, but for som…
    in Law 25 Comment by JeremyChild January 23
  • @Mark_Brown said: 40B2(d): again, stating information that is available to everyone does not constitute "aids to his memory, calculation or technique". I'm going to dispute this one. Surely stating information available to every…
  • Scenario 2 : explanation There's a difference between "don't know" and "haven't discussed" their system. Don't know implies there is one, haven't discussed that there is not. When players say bids hadn't been discussed, they usually mean "nothing…
  • Scenario 1 : counting I have some sympathy with allowing this. I'm not sure 73A and B are relevant to this case - they're about communication of hidden information (how many hearts I have) not what is (in theory) available to everyone. 43A1(c) - …
  • I don't know what the situation is at other clubs, but our BB@B is a long way from what it should be. It is part of the director's role to manage this on the day, but it's not easy, and can't be done without the club doing its part. I also think t…
  • In terms of keeping noise down, have a three tier approach. Initially it's just a "Shhhh", which works most of the time (they been trained). Next, which usually occurs towards the end of a round, it's "Ladies and Gentlemen please keep the noise d…
  • As a playing director, if I hear the start of any ructions (usually a dispute rather than (yet) any bad behaviour) I usually call out "table N, if there's a problem call the director, if there isn't please, please settle down and continue playing". …
  • @16248 said: I have had a complete hand played without a dummy. Director was called afterwards. I have seen a table playing without a dummy and asked them what was going on.
  • @gordonrainsford said: While this would clearly be a mess with no easy satisfactory solution, perhaps leading to the board being deemed unplayable, I think it's clear this situation couldn't have been reached without an opening lead being face…
  • @Johnathan said: Now I know the NOS card should have been a major penalty and, because he followed to the OLOOT, I should have given declarer the option of lead penalties, which I did not! If I had given this option and declarer asked for, or…
  • @gordonrainsford said: @JeremyChild said: If you don't allow the lead by dummy to be accepted by next player playing to the trick, then I can see nothing in the laws to prevent rolling back from trick 13, and having 26 penalty card…
  • I'd originally looked at 54E/24 and discounted it because things had moved on. Now I'm wondering at what point things have moved on too far. I initially thought that once defenders had played it was too far to roll back, but if that were the case…
  • @gordonrainsford said: L54E -> L24 Law 54E states that "If a player of the declaring side attempts to make an opening lead Law 24 applies" Law 24 refers to "CARD EXPOSED OR LED DURING THE AUCTION". The upshot of this is that no lead has…
  • @Notagain said: Harsh though it might seem in this case, 60A1 tells us "A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the righ…
  • @Senior_Kibitzer said: This is the first time I have come across such a situation. It must be quite rare. The rectification in Law 67B1b is draconian in this scenario, but there it is! I quite often see the lead to the next trick (usually by…
  • I'm a little unsure about applying Law 72C here. The law was extended from the old "damaging enforced pass" and whilst it seems to be much more far reaching now, I think care should be taken with its use. Consider a lead out of turn which benefits…
  • I am in two minds about this, so I thought I'd lay out my stall LHO does not accept the lead by playing to the trick - that's only for a lead out of turn. While RHO has done nothing wrong, LHO should be more awake, and has at least been remiss in …
  • I have read before (on this forum) that physical closeness of the call made to the apparently intended call is relevant. The commentary Gordon refers to specifically includes the phrase "The mistake has to be entirely one of fingers". Consider a s…
  • @Robin_BarkerTD said: Or the director can decide that in hindsight the ruling that the call was comparable was erroneous - and rule director's error and apply Law 82{something} It doesn't necessarily have to be director's error - the player …
  • Why do we need a definition of playing tricks? BB5A3 requires that your definition of PT must be easily understood by opponents, and BB5C3 says that there is a need for complete disclosure, but beyond that there are no restrictions. Whether you de…
  • @ais523 said: My understanding is that if you have the opportunity to change your final call, you don't get any other rectification for the effect misinformation could have had on that call (which makes sense: you're fully informed at the time…
  • What it's getting at here is there are no penalties to NOS for the withdrawn call. This certainly means 16C1, but also that nothing in Law 26 (Call withdrawn, lead restrictions) applies. There is certainly the possibility of further rectification i…
  • @TawVale said: Why are you saying North did not commit an infraction? The mere act of going to the previous table where he can see which hand is dummy and what is on the right is why we drum it into people that they must await the boards and n…
  • @gordonrainsford said: What stops it is that the premise is not true. That'll do it.
  • @weejonnie said: Not really, the law by inference allows members of a partnership to change the meanings of calls based on their OWN iregularities. Isn't that exactly what happens here? Assuming this to be true, is there anything to stop a s…
  • @gordonrainsford said: What is under discussion is when 2NT has not been accepted and is not deemed permissible under L27B1. Just to clarify, it is the 1NT that has not been accepted, and the 2NT that is the (non-comparable) replacement call…
  • @weejonnie said: Something that isn't mentioned (as if we didn't have enough) is that if the person who makes the opening lead out of turn could have known that it would benefit his side then the TD awards an adjusted score - even if the decla…
  • @gordonrainsford said: The slightly tongue in cheek traditional wisdom is that you should always accept the lead on the basis that a player who doesn’t know whose lead it is is unlikely to have found the best lead. LOL!