Help
dburn, on 2011-January-27, 06:17, said:
What for? So that you can use it to say:
instead of what you previously said, which was:
Or perhaps you would like the strength to read, so that you will understand that the original post made no mention whatsoever of the auction, and this conclusion:
is not supported by any factual evidence whatsoever. Nor, of course, is it refuted by any factual evidence whatsoever, but the correct answer to the original question was not "artificial adjusted scores are awarded" nor "play continues normally", but "it depends on what the auction was". Since we don't know what the auction was, we don't know what Gerben should have done.
Keen observers will have noticed that I have in the foregoing assumed that it is rational to apply Law 17 to this position at all, despite previously having referred to this as "absurd". It is absurd, and it is my opinion (and that of the Chief Tournament Director of the WBF) that Law 17 does not apply in this position. But if it did, it would be important to apply it correctly.
instead of what you previously said, which was:
Or perhaps you would like the strength to read, so that you will understand that the original post made no mention whatsoever of the auction, and this conclusion:
is not supported by any factual evidence whatsoever. Nor, of course, is it refuted by any factual evidence whatsoever, but the correct answer to the original question was not "artificial adjusted scores are awarded" nor "play continues normally", but "it depends on what the auction was". Since we don't know what the auction was, we don't know what Gerben should have done.
Keen observers will have noticed that I have in the foregoing assumed that it is rational to apply Law 17 to this position at all, despite previously having referred to this as "absurd". It is absurd, and it is my opinion (and that of the Chief Tournament Director of the WBF) that Law 17 does not apply in this position. But if it did, it would be important to apply it correctly.
I wrote "give me strength" as a reaction to the strong feeling I have of "fighting windmills".
Honestly, I did not consider the possibility that the auction had gone just 2NT - pass - pass - pass with North as dealer; this is the only possible auction where West (the offender) has not made any call before his partner has called during the auction and therefore the only possible auction where the Director may allow the board to be played (provided West after seeing his correct cards repeats his pass).
Law 17D2 definitely applies in any case when a player hs made a call while holding cards from a wrong board. Whether such boards may be played or artificial adjusted scores must be assigned is very clear from this law. (Law 17D3 is equally clear and applies when the other affected board is to be played)
