c_corgi

I don't see how either N nor S could justify removing 3CX unless N has extreme shape. Or maybe if S had equivalent holdings in the minors and W manerisms suggested huge club stack AND S had recieved no UI. How strong is the West hand? If it is too strong for pass to be plausible then double seems less likely than 3NT: weak players generally seem happier to declare 3NT than defend doubled partscores. I suspect E/W getting to 3NT requires more weighting. Variations where W passes over 3C may need to take into account 'fielded misbid (East's double being the misbid)' if such a thing exists in ACBL.

Blackshoe is right that I am quibbling with the RA rather than the director, thereby being guilty of thread drift.

If opening these sort of hands is allowed/happening, I don't see how being an 'illegal agreement' helps beginners to defend against them. It seems a more appropriate test would be along the lines of: "do N/S have methods to control the effect of such an opening?", e.g. does S have methods to avoid driving 3NT with a 2155 13 count opposite this N hand, and play 2S instead? Otherwise all the regulation seems to do is inhibit N exercising judgement and punish the development of partnership understanding.

What is the thinking behind making the agreement to do it illegal, rather than the doing of it or the fielding partner doing it?

Let us assume there were a match in which N/S were dealt such a hand. Both Norths thought opening 1H might be a good idea and both Souths thought it was silly. One of the pairs had a similar hand dealt previously and North had opened 1H. Is it now legal for one pair to open 1H and not the other?

What are the critria for deciding an illegal agreement? The wording of the example in WB40.1.6* suggests that it is illegal if both partners consider it to be the correct opening bid. Here it sounds more like both partners can see why opening 1H rather than PASS might be a successful action. Is this strong enough to constitute an illegal agreement? *pertains to opening 2C with substandard hands

Correct.

In one case L31 applies, in the other it doesn't.

I don't think this counts as consultation: it is North unilaterally choosing a third option which was not available to South, rather than influencing South's choice. It does allow North the option to ensure rejection of the BOOT, but at the cost of enforcing L31. This assumes L28B applies, of course!

If 9B were to be applied to 25B situations I think 25B would mention it, just as it mentions that 16D2 applies. Therefore there is no overlap, merely confusion over where the border is: when the procedure described in 10 commences or when it finishes. Since 25B refers to the the procedure of 10 in the past tense, so it seems reasonable to assume that 25B expires only when South makes his choice. In that case, surely the director should offer 25B to North before offering rectification to South. This does not seem to be part of directorial procedure though, so it may be that precedent is set in favour of the border being at the beginning of the L10 process.

"Option" was a poor choice of word for the second of my proposed alternatives, I should have said "opportunity" instead. The second alternative basically assumes 9B2 takes precedence over 28B and the first option assumes 28B to be an exception to 9B2. So in your example if 28B applies I don't think North's action can simultaneously be illegal under 9B2.

It feels like the direction this thread is taking will result in the conclusion that a minor technical infringement by the NOS will result in loss of rectification for the grossest of misdemeanors by the OS. I don't see why "Director does so rule..." in L11 should not be interpreted as Director rules that NOS may lose the right to rectification... so that there is still scope for TD's judgement. In this case I would rule (1) the original lead stands and (2) the replacement lead is UI to defenders UNLESS declarer was aware that the original lead was irrevocably played.

It would seem strange if the laws intended "rectification has been assessed" to mean "the director has explained the options" unless it was intended to put North/South at a disadvantage for not knowing the options before the director explained them. Surely 28B should be an option to North until South decides what to do (and be included in the TD statement), or the option should expire when attention is drawn to the BOOT.

Frances, I am trying to get my head round this: does it add up to: there needs to be evidence that the mistake was your call rather than partner's explanation, otherwise the TD will/may assume that you should have called him and given your version of the explanation. Thus the existence of a misunderstanding should have come to light and been available to the opponents?

Quite so, particularly given that the wording of 70A suggests that the following sections are not meant to cover all eventualities.

If declarer asked about East's bid and was told it shows something like a J-eighth one count, wouldn't that be MI? It seems sensible that the obligation to give proper disclosure would trump the desire to ensure the opponents suffer as a result of having recieved UI.

Is there a distinction between the following: a) It is AI to N that S has 4+S from the withdrawn 1H call. b) S may withdraw the 1H call but N/S may still play 'system on' as if the 1H call had been made. I would think that a) does not necessarily imply b), in fact that b) seems inappropriate. Although it may be that situations could be constructed whereby not playing system on in the light of the AI would be ridiculous. Is there a precedent here?

If, as seems both reasonable and inevitable, we persist with using IMPs for anything other than long head to head matches, shouldn't we just accept that the results will be less "pure"?

I have a suspicion that had the double of 3C not been described as penalty, North would have stood it, so MI likely contributed to the damage. This logic makes it difficult to defend partscores under any circumstances. True, but why would a player assume a non existent agreement if it was contradicted by her holding for the purposes of giving an explanation? I think it is beyond wild or gambling and out the other side. While preemptive may not neceassarily mean weak, if the actual hand West held is not a departure from system, then it seems like a grossly insufficient explanation.

But dummy is on lead, so North does not have the opportunity to return a spade even if he had one. Surely the only rational line at this point is to play four rounds of clubs, hoping for 3-3 and discarding a spade. Clearly declarer has not spotted this, so how can we judge what he might have done at the point he conceded?

Law 45C4b. Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1). I don't see what difference the incompleteness of the designaation makes: just its unintendedness and the absence of pause for thought.

If the question were "Should South's reopening double be allowed after questions from North?" I would say no. Surely N/S keep table score, but what of E/W? Neither the 2D overcall nor the double of 3C match the description, and in such a way that it doesn't look as if much disclosure was attempted. If MI is determined, as seems likely, then maybe 2D+1 for E/W and a PP (possibly to both pairs) into the bargain?

As far as I can see, it has not been established whether decarer paused for thought between calling for the ace or the nine. If he did, then of course you are right. If he did not, then the correction seems valid. What the correction designates, in terms of L46B3 is less clear: it may designate the nine of the suit in which dummy won the previous trick.

"Ace of hearts - no the nine" sounds like a designation of the 9 of hearts. This suggests that declarer has made one call (by a roundabout route) rather than two calls (the one for the 9 superceding the one for the ace). Therefore Law 46B4* allows declarer to void his initial call by correcting it to a card which is not in dummy. If, on the other hand, declarer's statement is interpreted as two separate calls and the 9 of hearts is not present but the 9 of spades is, then it sounds like a call for the 9 of spades, although quite likely to be deemed that "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible". But if the correction designates a card not present, then maybe it is the correction which is void and the ace of hearts becomes played (in terms of the wording, "the only legal card available for declarer to designate"). *45B4: "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card."

West's double suggests he was expecting a more NT suitable hand from his partner. Having placed East with a "natural" 2NT, South might consider what is left for West to hold: it is an odd-looking double.