weejonnie

In the case of EI the TD has various options. 2. If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made: (a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand; (b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants; © allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that the extraneous information affected the result; (d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B). Obviously a) and b) are impossible and c) is likely to be impossible if there is a playing TD, so you walk into d) and an artificial adjusted score. So the awarding of the AAS depends on circumstances. a) wrong traveller in right board: neither side is at fault. NB sometimes the travellers are numbered incorrectly - rather like players entering a result alongside the board number rather than the NS pair number. I cannot see why someone should be penalised for doing something which is automatic and has resulted from a procedural irregularity at another table. Obviously the other pair (usually EW) are exonerated but it seems unreasonable to penalise a pair just because they were the ones sitting NS. b) traveller taken from another board: this is a procedural irregularity and 40/60 seems to be the correct decision if the TD cannot rule as in c) above.

I think we have to start off with question two first 2. Is West's action to bid 3♦ legal? West has opened a weak two in diamonds and has heard partner bid 2♠. West would have to provide some pretty good evidence why they think they should rebid 3 diamonds if the 2 spade bid isn't forcing (this is not impossible - West might hold seven diamonds and a spade void, but with any kind of spade tolerance it would seem clear to pass). Obviously they have no partnership agreement that the 2 spade bid is forcing but maybe West plays with another player who does have a forcing 2 spade response to 2 diamonds, or maybe they have recently changed systems. (Look! I am doing as much as I can to exonerate West's bid but it seems at first glance to be a clear case of "unauthorised panic") 1. Is East's 2nd round pass legal? East has unauthorised information (his partner did not alert), but he also has authorised information (West MUST respond 2NT and hasn't): So we come to deciding whether there is a logical alternative: - (b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. I would poll (very difficult of course) but I think I would allow the pass (of course this is irrelevant since if the UI stands the contract will be rolled back to 2 spades if it turns out to be better for NS than 3 diamonds when played.) It may get a bit more interesting if West has done this before - as we head towards the MI aspect. 3. Should East call the TD before the 3♦ is passed. I assume East should definitely call the TD if the auction ends with 3♦ all pass. Quite obviously no: Law 20F (in part) 5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is: (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. So: East calls and gives the correct explanation for his 2 spade response. The TD offers South his last pass back (assuming the contract is 3 diamonds): South cannot use the information that the opponents have had a bidding misunderstanding. If South does change his call then that is the end of the matter regarding the misexplanation, but not the UI, since without the UI South would never be in this position. NS will get the better result of the score at the table and the possible results of EW playing in 2 Spades: EW will get the worse and a procedural penalty under law 73C2.

Yes 3NT (assuming it is natural). (Lowest call showing the same denominations) - Can still adjust of course if needed, but no UI regarding the actual bids.

"Interesting hand, both sides make a trick with the two of hearts." (although it is probable that West made the trick with the nine) I suppose I would have to do a short-cut and rule under 12C1b (restoration of probable result if no infraction had occurred). This is the Solomonic approach. Both sides of course are at fault (if only for not calling the TD when West 'plays two cards to the same trick') so 12A1 (no rectification stated) does not apply. (And see my fixed comments below)

2H would also qualify as the lowest bid that shows the same denomination(s)- it does not have to be comparable (and partner is even allowed to know that the original bid was 1H.

On BBO there is something called 'chat manager' - you save your basic system announcements and then just send it to the table at the start of each round. (I use it for the plethora of announcements a TD has to make). In EBULand we allow access to convention cards on the principle that there is no way to prevent it. BBO being mainly barometer, comments about previous hands would seem irrelevant. RAs can allow bidding aids if they so wish

It seems a simple case of applying Law 73C1: you don't need 'explanations' or rationale or anything like that. The comments suggest South is interested in diamonds: I mean the law is clear on that point (Law 20F3) - North must carefully avoid making use of that information so must not lead a diamond unless there is no logical alternative. (A singleton diamond for instance would probably be good enough. Isn't it marvelous - for months there were hardly any Laws threads on BBO - now we are back to F2F the incidence is increasing.

It seems that a) the revoke is established when east plays the ♣6 63A1 and may not be corrected 63B b) The ♦7 remains played to the trick 63B c) The ♣9 is played to the third trick and the trump is now a major penalty card 62B1. Declarer has the option of changing their card played to the third trick. 62C d) The TD calls the TO and asks where the L&EC can be contacted. (Or at least fills out a recorder form) Law 64C and 72C apply. As does 16C. This assumes TD id called after third trick

No - RR quite often sorts a spade amongst his clubs and leads '4th highest' from three,

Yes - next: nothing in the law would save declarer.

One of the conundrums is that there is always going to be the chance that partner will respond before you have the chance to declare a misclick. (Playing against a robot and someone who has an obvious call you may have only a couple of seconds - even less if you are playing with a robot as well.) The laws of bridge (2017) do not envisage speed-of-light bidding sequences nor do bridge platforms, at least on BBO, do they limit UNDOs (when enabled). So I would definitely agree that the players are not playing bridge as we understand it on a f2f basis. I have had similar situations crop up on the daily EBU events on BBO (where UNDOs aren't allowed). Normally I will chat directly to the player involved and simply explain that UNDOS aren't allowed and then, if the player has advised the table that they have misclicked, that said information is UI for partner. I would like it if UNDOS could be allowed by overriding as Director, but that, unfortunately is not, at present, an option. (I also advise players to select "confirm calls" and "confirm plays" on their settings to try and avoid it happening again). I have no power (legally) to amend the result if a player gets a bad score as all players know the consequences of misclicking on the CoC - although of course I can change the final result to anything. If a player DOES get a good score because their partner uses the UI then I think I can still adjust. (I would not award any pair an AV+ if the board became unplayable due to their misclick. I would award AV- as the player involved is "directly at fault" for the problem)

Well I hope that I'm not contradicting myself! A comparable call can provide less information providing it is 'similar': a call that shows 11-17 is going to be comparable cateris paribus with one that shows 12-16 as the overlap is substantially greater than the discrepancy. If it turns out that the extra information (in this case the fact that a player can't have 11 or 17) is material to the final result then we adjust under 27D (which explains how you apply 23C) The argument comes from the definition of a comparable call and the word "attributable" to the withdrawn call. So it does not matter what, exactly the bidder meant to say, it is what they could have meant to say. Suppose there is an IB of 4♣.It could have been Gerber or a cue bid (no agreement). Suppose the player meant it to be a cue bid: they can still replace it with 4NT asking for aces since that meaning is attributable to the IB.

Well if your partner doesn't know what 'Queen points' are (I haven't the foggiest) then at their turn they can ask - you don't need to hold their hand.

""So, give me shape, and which suits controls have been shown. I understand what queen points are, but partner might not."" Asking questions for the sole benefit of partner is an infraction - Law 20G1

I think we have to look at how likely EW would be to lead a heart given the Ace of spades lead and any signal that their partner would make and the sight of dummy. Then we give them sympathetic weighting. To clarify matters - do we treat them as being non-offending at the same time? If so then it looks like we would have to weigh as follows: NS: 6S X (probability of not a heart switch sympathetically weighted) + 6S-1 X (probability of a heart switch sympathetically weighted) EW: 6S-1 X(probability of a heart switch sympathetically weighted) + 6S X (probability of not a heart switch sympathetically weighted) However if the law is that the actions of the other pair are what happened at the table then NS get 6S X probability of a heart being banned (synpathetically weighted) + 6X-1 X probability of another suit being banned (and this could include any of the other denominations since clubs has not been bid during the legal auction.)