[lamford]

axman, on 2016-January-21, 14:46, said:

Vancouver #5 lives!

http://web2.acbl.org...9spring/db8.pdf (page 4) seems to be appeal number 5 from Vancouver 1999, but, while interesting, is unrelated to this thread. Could you clarify which ruling or appeal you are referencing, please? Or maybe it was not an ACBL nationals?

[axman]

lamford, on 2016-January-22, 07:46, said:

http://web2.acbl.org...9spring/db8.pdf (page 4) seems to be appeal number 5 from Vancouver 1999, but, while interesting, is unrelated to this thread. Could you clarify which ruling or appeal you are referencing, please? Or maybe it was not an ACBL nationals?

The reference was to how Shuster- so as to take retroactive advantage of L45C4b- asserted absurd properties to Stansby's "#$!^%$$" to mean that Stansby had changed her play of the spade, when in fact Stansby in no way changed her play, contemporaneously or otherwise.

[Vampyr]

A very dark day in bridge laws history.

[lamford]

Postscript: The TD ruled that the contract be adjusted to 7SX-3 by EW but SB has appealed within the time allowed. He believes that, without the infraction, East would indeed have bid 7S over a redouble, but North, seeing that East would be on lead, would now bid 7NT. West would still double (the fact that he has an MPC is authorised to EW, but not what the card is which is unauthorised, and is authorised to NS) and SB, South, would redouble. North would leave the ace of hearts as an MPC, and on any lead, West would, in due course, be obliged to discard the ace of hearts on the run of the diamonds, and SB thinks a significant percentage of 7NTxx= should be awarded. As he points out, there is no defence to 7NT by North with the ace of hearts as an MPC. I have been asked to stand on the AC and seek this forum's advice.

[steve2005]

lamford, on 2016-January-30, 05:36, said:

As he points out, there is no defence to 7NT by North with the ace of hearts as an MPC. .

Darn saw post to late, saw this 7N play

[lamford]

campboy, on 2016-January-20, 04:20, said:

Redoubling in the hope that a silenced player will pull is crazy, of course, and so I'd deny N/S some portion of redress for that reason. South should just pass; he would still get redress on the basis that he would have redoubled were it not for the infraction.

My reporter tells me that the AC met (while I was away in the US) somewhat late and decided to award 80% of 7NTxx= by North and 20% of 7Sx-3 for EW. Redouble was automatic, of course, and the AC decided it would be a serious error not to make it. Not in the hope that a silenced player would pull, of course, but as an effort to get 7NT played the right way up which it should have achieved opposite a North who was not dead from the neck up. They considered whether North's failure to bid 7NT instead of his final pass was a serious error, and decided it was not. They thought that East would have pulled to 7S all the time, being a timid rabbit, but then North would normally have woken up and bid 7NT. West would have doubled, as the rank and suit of his own penalty card is UI to him as well. SB was amused by your classification of his call as a serious error or wild.