rfrick at rfrick.info
Mon Aug 12 02:41:24 CEST 2013
On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:18:48 -0400, Ed Reppert <blackshoe at mac.com> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 7:00 PM, Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info> wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 15:40:03 -0400, Anton Witzen <a.witzen at upcmail.nl>
>>> Beg you pardon but what is the problem?
>>> If both parties want to discuss endless about the play and the TD let
>>> going on, is this a TD problem?
>> The main problem is when one pair would like to agree on the number of
>> tricks won and the other pair wants to argue about the hand.
>> Is there no problem when both pairs want to talk about the hand? As
>> director, I would prefer they first agreed on the number of tricks won.
>> Of course, other people might think it is okay for one pair to argue
>> the hand before agreeing on number of tricks won. Then the current laws
>> are fine.
> Generally speaking and IMO:
> 1. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed annoys someone
> at the table, there's been a violation of Law 74A2.
And if they try to agree on the score and that annoys the people making
the post mortem...Who is violating L74A2? Both sides?
My point is, we all have the feeling that if a side wants to agree on the
score, the post mortem should wait.
> 2. If conducting a post-mortem before the score is agreed causes a later
> slow play problem, there should be a procedural penalty (Laws 90B2 and
> possibly 90B7). In a club game this should be a warning for a first
> 3. Nobody should put his cards back in the board until the score is
> agreed (Law 79A). It would be a good idea not to mix them, either.
> 4. The TD might prefer players to agree the score first, but as long as
> delay in agreement does not delay the game, that's a preference, not a
I would prefer them to agree on the score and then have their post mortem.
Yes, this time they might agree on the score. I am worried about next time.
> 5. If any player has any problem with what's going on at his table, he
> should call the director forthwith or, if dummy, at the end of play.
And then what? He called to say that the opponent's were doing a post
mortem before agreeing on the score. That's legal.
Again, we have the feeling that the side doing the post mortem was the
"offending side". But that's not in the laws. I suggest changing the laws.
More information about the Blml