par31

I think the opponents have been damaged in both cases, but only receive a score adjustment in the first. 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." This applies in both cases. 12A says that the Director can award an adjusted score when the Laws empower him to do so. In the first case, this power is conferred by 23C. In the second case, there is nothing permitting a score adjustment. 27B prescribes the rectification for the irregularity (offender's partner must pass throughout) and 12B2 indicates that the Director may not award an adjusted score because the rectification is too advantageous to OS.

I think it's covered by 16A2: "Players may also take account of ... the traits of their opponents, ...". And 73D1(a) just emphasizes the prohibition in 16B1(a) and 73C of the player's partner making use of the UI, and adds the additional information that the other side draws inferences at their own risk.

I don't see any justification for allowing this. 47F2 is clear that the card cannot be withdrawn, and 81C5 is not relevant as there has been no rectification. In practice, I'd assume the players would usually just illegally allow a change of card without calling the TD. If the defenders are both concerned about following the laws and sufficiently competent to do so, they could presumably not allow the change of card then manipulate the subsequent play to produce what they consider an equitable result; I don't think this breaches 72A as their "chief" object need not be their only object.

Suppose we agree that if declarer had been given full and correct information by the TD before making his choice then the result would clearly have been 7NT=. Wouldn't it then be normal practice to award a score of 7NT= to both sides? This seems consistent with, e.g., the advice given by the EBU in White Book 8.82.3. (There, in a different situation, a weighted score is assigned but it has the same property that one side gets a worse score than they achieved at the table with the incorrect initial ruling.) However, after looking at the Law Book, I'm worried about what the basis for doing this is. We're obviously adjusting under 82C which says that both sides should be treated as non-offending. But then 12B1 tells us: So if we're treating both sides as non-offending and a result has been obtained at the table, what do we use to justify taking it away and awarding a worse result to one side?

Opener seems to be permitted under Law 9A1 to point out that partner should have used the Stop card (instead of asking the question that she asked). This would presumably also have had the effect of causing responder to realise that she had misbid and allowing her to correct it.

The table director ruled fairly quickly that pass was not an LA so score stands. Discussing the ruling afterwards, we thought it seemed unusual to rule on the basis that the only LA was bidding a non-making contract over a non-making contract by the other side. At this point, it occurred to us that double might be an LA. It's not clear to me what the correct ruling is if one decides that pass is not an LA but double is. It seems to me that the LAs are then X and 5♣. I don't see why the hesitation would suggest one of these actions over the other (South might have been thinking of bidding 5♣ or of doubling 4♠) so I think I would have ruled score stands. But I'm not sure if this is the correct view on what might be suggested by the hesitation so I'd be interested in other opinions.

4♣ was natural. See the diagram in the original post for the first four tricks, after which it makes easily.

[hv=pc=n&s=s632ht8daq754ct96&w=skqj954hk9djt82c4&n=st8haj762dcakq852&e=sa7hq543dk963cj73&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp3s4c4sp(Agreed%20break%20in%20tempo)p5cdppp&p=sas2sks8h3hthkhah2hqh8h9d3dad2]399|300[/hv] Club multiple teams-of-four, IMPs -> VPs There was an agreed break in tempo by South before the pass over 4♠. Final contract 5♣x by North, let through on a misdefence for NS+550. Director called at end of the hand by East. What is your ruling?

Matchpoint Pairs In the last round of tonight's duplicate at the club, one of the players noticed that two of the three boards in the round had not been shuffled and dealt (he remembered playing them the previous week). It was clearly too late to redeal them at that point and have everyone play them again. How should the boards in question be scored? 6D2 and 12C2(a) suggest to me that everyone who playeds these board should be awarded Ave+ on them (all but one pair as there was a sit-out). But it feels strange to give everyone Ave+ on a board so I wondered if this was the usual practice or if it was more normal to do something else instead, e.g. simply not score the boards at all.

I was actually more interested in the question from a practical point of view, i.e. what should I do as director if this situation arises and I'm called by one side objecting to the other's omitting to alert a double? But the responses from whatever perspective have been interesting, so thanks to everyone. The question arises from an actual situation at a club duplicate that I've been informed about but did not witness personally.

EBU alerting regulations. Under what circumstances (if any) should a double of an undiscussed suit bid by opponents be alerted if they do not know whether or not the bid shows the suit bid?

[hv=pc=n&s=skj64hj8dkjt54ct3&w=sa9852h9732d7ckj8&n=sqt73ha6da932cq54&e=shkqt54dq86ca9762&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2hd2n3d3sp4hppp]399|300[/hv] Club multiple teams, 4 board matches IMPs -> VPs Bidding boxes in use Table result 4♥=W, NS-420. 2♥ is alerted and explained by East as spades and a minor. The correct explanation is weak with both majors. East had misread the bid as 2♠. X is undiscussed. 2NT is alerted and explained by West as a game-forcing enquiry. Opposite a 2♠ opener, 2NT would have been Lebensohl-like. After this explanation, East woke up to his mistake and the TD was called. After North was provided with the correct explanation of the 2♥ bid he was given the option to change his double which he declined. 1) Is it UI or AI to East that West has opened 2♥? 2) Do you adjust the score?

What was the outcome of the appeal?

Someone at the club asked me the following last week. He wanted to know the rules about playing a 10-12 1NT opening in an EBU level 4 event. In particular, is he forbidden from agreeing to open a 4333 10-count 1NT in 1st or 2nd position? I thought the answer to this was obviously no, but on checking the EBU blue book it says "All one-level opening bids, whether forcing or not, must by agreement show 8+ HCP and, in first and second position, follow the Rule of 18. Natural 1NT opening bids must show 9+ HCP." (7A3). This suggests that it is indeed forbidden as it doesn't satisfy the rule of 18. Is this really what the regulation is intended to say or have the words "in a suit" been accidentally omitted in the first sentence? The latter seems more likely to me, particularly as opening 4333 10-counts 1NT appears to be permitted at level 2: here, the relevant blue book extracts are "A one-level opening bid in a suit must either show 11+ HCP, or show 8+ HCP and satisfy the Rule of 19." (6C1) and "An opening 1NT must be non-forcing. It may show any agreed range with at least 10 HCP, with no singleton or void and no 7-card suit." (6C2)

The Regulating Authority in this case (EBU) has provided otherwise: "Under Law 40B2©(iii) a player may look at his opponents' system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information." (WB40.10)