Help
jhenrikj, on 2012-April-19, 23:43, said:
That was changed in the 1997 laws....
But the interpretation thar both is at fault is ridiculous. Lets assume we are playing a 64 board match divided into 4 stanzas of 16 boards (the definition states, each such stanza is one session ). After 12 boards, east goes to the bathroom, west takes the opportunity to go and get some coffee. When EW return they find that north has put the next board on the table incorrectly orientated and look at east cards. Now EW get penalized -1VP for this, does this seem reasonable?
But the interpretation thar both is at fault is ridiculous. Lets assume we are playing a 64 board match divided into 4 stanzas of 16 boards (the definition states, each such stanza is one session ). After 12 boards, east goes to the bathroom, west takes the opportunity to go and get some coffee. When EW return they find that north has put the next board on the table incorrectly orientated and look at east cards. Now EW get penalized -1VP for this, does this seem reasonable?
Of course not. What Law suggests this? Certainly not Law 7D.
jhenrikj, on 2012-April-21, 07:41, said:
The main question remains, are both pairs in a team game considered stationary or not?
If they are stationary, yes, if not, no. What difference does it make?
It is difficult to see any problem with Law 7D, and none has been shown in this thread. Silly rulings by silly TDs may happen, but not because of this Law.
Andy, I never realised you were so old that you were following a Law book of 40+ years ago!
