[barmar]

We haven't been told how the play progressed before the director call. If there have been two diamond tricks and declarer has shown out, there's no UI from the report of MI.

North knew about the MI as soon as dummy came down. If he wanted to let his partner in on it, why did he wait until trick 6?

[BunnyGo]

barmar, on 2012-November-16, 10:58, said:

Depends on whether you're Jewish or Christian.

Old Testament: An eye for an eye
New Testament: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Also, turn the other cheek.

Actually, that's Hammurabi as the "eye for an eye" and it's the Jewish bible that's "don't do unto others what you would find hateful done to you."

[Sjoerds]

ahydra, on 2012-November-16, 12:29, said:

You mean North is passing UI to South? This was my opinion also - he should wait until the end of the hand - but can an experienced TD tell us whether a TD call and the ensuing discussion legally constitutes UI? My guess is that it doesn't, but that does open up a few possibilities for using TD calls to pass information...

It is important for a TD to avoid UI when he arrives. When North says "that there has been misinformation" and TD sees that they are still playing he must be accurate and take North from the table.
Even his first statement might be UI for south. Unfortunately the TD sometimes helps to make things worse when he stays at the table and the discussion starts.
Of course you have to call the TD when your information was not correct; but if you figured out that the opps haven given incorrect information it is not appropriate/allowed to tell your partner during the play. Not even when you try to use the TD for this purpose .

[mr1303]

South describes himself as a militant atheist :-)

[TimG]

BunnyGo, on 2012-November-16, 20:10, said:

Actually, that's Hammurabi as the "eye for an eye" and it's the Jewish bible that's "don't do unto others what you would find hateful done to you."

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

[BunnyGo]

TimG, on 2012-November-17, 20:29, said:

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

It's actually Talmudic which isn't in the books of the old testament, but is the commentary. I believe the quote is attributed to Rabbi Hillel.

[BunnyGo]

TimG, on 2012-November-17, 20:29, said:

I thought that too about the "Golden Rule", but my internet searching kept coming up with Sermon on the Mount which is New Testament. Can you point me to the Old Testament verse? (It is, of course, a sentiment expressed in many other beliefs.)

Just checked, it's in the Sabbat section of the talmud, first discussed by Hillel around 50 BCE.

[barmar]

OK, but I was correct about "turn the other cheek" being New Testament, wasn't I?