FACTS

The advantage of writing about the laws is that some people do think you to be the right person to ask an opinion about matters related to the laws. Which eventually will help you to become an expert if enough questions are asked and solved. Let me tell you about three recent experiences.

1. An official comes to me and tells me the following: a player opens 2} showing 0 to 10 points with any distribution. This is a brown sticker convention, which should clearly be marked on the convention card. It is clearly marked on the convention card. Well done then. LHO calls the director and tells that he did not prepare a defence and feels damaged and the director shows a lot of sympathy for LHO, cancels the board and gives the pair some minutes to prepare a defence. What do I think of such a TD decision? Well, the TD's are my friends, I am one myself, so only reluctantly I gave my opinion that this decision might lack a legal basis.

2. Half an hour later a TD tells me the following: a player opens the bidding with a pass he alerts. LHO asks what the pass means and gets the answer that it shows 6 to10 points. LHO calls the TD and tells him that he has noticed that his opponents play a 2} opening from 0 to 5 with any distribution, but hadn't realised that as a consequence the pass shows 6 to10. So he asks some minutes to prepare for this special agreement. The TD refuses to give him these minutes and tells him to continue play. Asked about my opinion I say that if the preparation time has been short as between the second and third round, I could have imaged somewhat more consideration for LHO.

3. Some time later a captain tells me the following: one of his players opens with a pass and LHO follows with a pass. The 2} 2clubs. Asked about the meanings he tells that the pass shows 6 to 10 points and his 2} is either 0 to 5 points or a strong hand. Now his screen mate suddenly opens the aperture and tells his partner that they don' have a defence and need to discuss this situation. Third man doesn't like this too much and calls the TD. The TD agrees that the opponents should get some time to prepare. Third man still doesn't like it and wants another TD to give a decision. This second TD supports his colleague, after which third man wants the chief TD at the table. The chief TD establishes the fact that both calls: pass and 2} are clearly marked on the convention card and denies the opponents to have any further discussion about their defence at this moment. Play should be continued. In the mean time according to the captain, the opponents having the aperture opened had enough time to agree a defence, though he adds that he is not sure they did. And he gently confirms that the result on the board was obvious so no harm done. TD's are my friends so my brief remark to this captain was that the chief TD was apparently appointed as such with a good reason.

Suppose these cases go the appeal committee. Any idea what will happen? After some time the appeal committee will find out that these three quite different cases are a description of the same incident that happened at one of the tables on Tuesday. Can you imagine that appeals take so long when these are the presentations of the facts of one and only one occurrence and the appeal committee needs to find out what really happened?

Ton Kooijman