[hrothgar]

What do people who think that the seven of Diamonds constitutes a played card think about the following hypothetical:

Assume for the moment that South has prematurely "played" the seven of Diamonds.
East, cunning soul that he is, now decides to change suit...
South is forced to play the seven of Diamonds, and there by revokes.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-June-27, 09:29, said:

Was there an infraction? Yes, failure to follow Law 74B3. So we can adjust under Law 23.

Law 74B begins: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from <snip>", so I don't think this is the route to follow. If someone was looking at the bulletin during the auction, you might conclude that he was "paying insufficient attention to the game." But I would be reluctant to punish him under L23 if the declarer played for his partner to have all the points, unsuccessfully.

I think the infraction of "showing the 7D" is the gesture which the person could know would mislead, rather than "detaching a card", so I agree with the adjustment, but under Law 73D2 (<snip> manner in which a <snip> play is made <snip>) and Law 23. I don't think it was a serious error to finesse either, even though it was teams, and I would give 100% of 3NT=. I have no means of telling - even from the commentary - whether the infraction was accidental or intentional. I do not need to decide that, but I would definitely not impose a PP on South. 73D2 requires purposeful deviation from correct procedure, but then 73F does not. The TD should therefore assume that "could have known" amounts to purposeful deviation, even though that is impossible to establish.

[mgoetze]

hrothgar, on 2011-June-27, 12:03, said:

What do people who think that the seven of Diamonds constitutes a played card

Uhm, who would that be?

Quote

Assume for the moment that South has prematurely "played" the seven of Diamonds.
East, cunning soul that he is, now decides to change suit...

In the middle of the trick? How would he do that? Especially since he was dummy?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-June-27, 04:13, said:

IMO, the rules should be clear about when a committee must return the deposit eg when An official advisor, after perusing the ruling report, advises the appellants that they have a case

RMB1, on 2011-June-27, 04:21, said:

As you may be aware EBU Appeals and Desposits guidance takes a different view of this point.

No but I am now, thank you. IMO, such things should be law rather than regulation. A reason for returning the deposit in such circumstances, is that it encourages would-be appellants to take independent expert legal advice.

[nige1]

Bulletin said:

I somehow can't fail to notice the "cultural" differences at this year's APBF Championships, and the interpretation of the meaning of English words. The incident that aroused my attention is the meaning of "Constructive Raise". The WBF Guide to Completion of Convention Card made several references to it but never really specified the actual point range. I guess what's constructive to some players may be destructive to others!! When you take a poll the result is also amazing. Some suggested 4-7, others 6-9 and still some played 8-11. There are many other variations. On second thought, I suddenly realise that the diversity probably results from the basic structure of the system they play and the upper limit of a 1-opening bid. Just wonder what could be the "constructive raise" for a strong or medium pass system.

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-26, 22:52, said:

Comments? Also, is this the first time that such a "commentary" of an appeal has been published in the tournament bulletin?!

It seems sensible that the strength of a "constructive raise" should depend on your opening-bid agreements

[Rossoneri]

nige1, on 2011-June-27, 15:10, said:

It seems sensible that the strength of a "constructive raise" should depend on your opening-bid agreements

Sure, but I would like to note that the bulletin was not from "Posnan", neither was it from Poznan. It was from Kuala Lumpur.

[Rossoneri]

hrothgar, on 2011-June-27, 12:03, said:

What do people who think that the seven of Diamonds constitutes a played card think about the following hypothetical:

Assume for the moment that South has prematurely "played" the seven of Diamonds.
East, cunning soul that he is, now decides to change suit...
South is forced to play the seven of Diamonds, and there by revokes.

Well if East could change suit, wouldn't South have led out of turn? I don't quite get you...

[nige1]

Rossoneri, on 2011-June-27, 20:19, said:

Sure, but I would like to note that the bulletin was not from "Posnan", neither was it from Poznan. It was from Kuala Lumpur.

Thanks Rossoneri. "Posnan" reference removed.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2011-June-27, 04:21, said:

As you may be aware EBU Appeals and Desposits guidance takes a different view of this point.

Why should Nigel be aware of that, when somebody has chosen to file this article under the heading "TD Forms", prefaced by "If you are a Tournament Director and want to find forms for appeals or psyches or adjustments or anything else..."?

I notice that the same article also appears at http://www.ebu.co.uk...guidelines.htm. To navigate to this page, one has follow a link introduced by "If you are a Tournament Director and want help with some common difficulties in running events..."

Both of these seem rather strange locations for a publication intended for appeals-committee members.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2011-July-05, 14:33, said:

Both of these seem rather strange locations for a publication intended for appeals-committee members.

Why?
When you serve on an appeals committee you see the appeals form and this guidance is part of the form.

Anyway, one could be aware of the guidance without seeing it in that document, it is only an extract from L&E minutes.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2011-July-05, 16:41, said:

When you serve on an appeals committee you see the appeals form and this guidance is part of the form.

Is it? I've never noticed that (though I'm not a frequent member of appeals committees). Perhaps I should pay more attention.

Anyway, it seems to me that one of the places that this publication should appear is in the section headed "Appeals".