[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 10:47, said:

[It might be a stretch to say that inadvertently concealing one of dummy's cards when the dummy was spread is an irregularity, in that all of the players can view the dummy and determine for themselves if all of the cards are there. But you may very well be right that the ruling might go this way. I have certainly never seen it.

It's not a stretch at all. I've never had occasion to rule on this particular irregularity, but if I do, that's the way it'll go.

[jeffford76]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-26, 13:06, said:

That being said, I'm pretty sure that a diamond switch is either nullo or close to it; partner cannot have both a club card and a diamond card.

This is what I was most curious about. Should this deny redress?

[CSGibson]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-26, 15:09, said:

This is what I was most curious about. Should this deny redress?

I don't think so. I think our only consideration would be is he more likely to get it right if he saw the 13th card in dummy, especially since this does not appear to be a double-shot, based on the timing of the discovery of the infraction. I think he is more likely to get it right.**

**To be noted, my knowledge of the law or how to apply it is in no way definitive.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-April-26, 12:16, said:

[/b][/font][/font][font="Arial"]I don't see anything here that makes Duplicate Decisions the official policy of the ACBL. In fact, it states that "at the club level" Duplicate Decisions can be used in place of the law book. It makes no statement about anything above the club level.

I think the expectation is that directors at higher levels are experienced enough that they don't need help understanding the Laws.