Received: by 10.180.91.231 with SMTP id ch7mr1100169wib.1.1353058860354;
        Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:41:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: ha8ni293004wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newspeer1.nac.net!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-hub.siol.net!news1.t-com.hr!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How should this be scored?
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:30:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <barmar-8324EA.23301410112012@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <9c3561ae3e428cf8ca3bd8e2938@news.zen.co.uk> <barmar-7380B2.11225709112012@news.eternal-september.org> <_fqdnUeyHvzAoQDNnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@vex.net> <blackshoe-FDBBFE.19283409112012@news.eternal-september.org>
Injection-Info: barmar.motzarella.org; posting-host="78fb7125a45724f15e21604c94a7d968";
	logging-data="30590"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MMkQoXBYM7xaLU5Xz3hxI"
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w7lU/EORriOmX+EHa+3fHsiYG7A=

In article 
<blackshoe-FDBBFE.19283409112...@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Ed Reppert <blacks...@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <_fqdnUeyHvzAoQDNnZ2dnUVZ_rqdn...@vex.net>,
>  m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> 
> > Barry Margolin:
> > > The only wrinkle is that the law says it applies when no result can be 
> > > obtained "owing to an irregularity".  But nowhere in the Laws does it 
> > > say that late play is an irregularity...
> > 
> > I raised that point here in a thread earlier this year.  Expert consensus
> > was that it does indeed count as an irregularity, whether the Laws say
> > so explicitly or not.
> 
> An irregularity is "a deviation from correct procedure". It is correct 
> procedure to move (if you're a moving pair) when the round is called 
> (see Law 8). If you cannot do that because you haven't finished playing 
> a board, you have committed an irregularity.

So finishing the previous round late is an irregularity. What 
irregularity is involved when the pair is not allowed to start a 
scheduled board because there's less than N minutes left in the current 
round?

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA