weejonnie

Yes - so West took steps to ensure that a slam wasn't missed, no matter what the bid meant nor of what east was thinking. that is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI. I don't know the system being used and it is quite possible that 4♥ meant - "I don't have a bust partner" in which case I accept that 6NT looks perfectly reasonable missing an Ace since there are plenty of smaller cards East may have that makes the contract reasonable. (and west may not be able tofind out what they are).

If West had no clue what the call meant due to the BIT then taking such an action as jumping to 6NT is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI - and hence should be proscribed (despite my comment above). I am sure there is a case somewhere in the EBU appeals casebooks where something similar happened (a jump to a slam to avoid any possibility of partner not understanding a subsequent call) - and was so interesting that it has been used on an EBU TD course. (County course 2015 apologies if regarded as a breach of copyright) [hv=pc=n&s=s753hak63dj6ca986&n=sakjt2hjdatcqt542&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1sp2cp3h(Not%20alerted)p4n(RKCB)p6cppp]266|200[/hv] (I think the decision was to amend the score to 6♠ -1 and throw the book at North, since it was felt that passing 6♥ was not a LA if South bid it, and South might have just forgotton to alert)

If West had no clue what the call meant due to the BIT then taking such an action as jumping to 6NT is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the UI - and hence should be proscribed (despite my comment above). I am sure there is a case somewhere in the EBU appeals casebooks where something similar happened (a jump to a slam to avoid any possibility of partner not understanding a subsequent call) - and was so interesting that it has been used on an EBU TD course.

All it suggests is that East didn't think he had an obvious 4H bid. I can's see how it demonstrably suggests a 6NT response.

Yes I understand that, however I think I would still regard it as "having the same or similar as that attributable to the withdrawn call" meaning. A 1♣ call does not deny 4 hearts - so we are within 1 card of the same suit length.

Yes but, for instance, it might give the opponents the chance to double the 3♣ call and find a better lead against 3NT.

Of course not - but the argument was that 1♣ denied a 5-card heart suit. Yes I realise that openng 2NT does not deny a 5-card heart suit, but it does not guarantee it either. I think this would only be of significance if the situation after the 2NT requires partner to allow for a 5-card heart suit. If you used 5-card Stayman (for instance) and had 3 hearts, it might be decided that you had to use it even though you know partner will not have 5 hearts (or spades) and if you did not then you might be open to an adjusted score.

Would you open 1 ♣ on ♠ - ♥ 76543 ♦ AQ ♣ AKQ765 ?

a) WBF have issued guideline on comparable calls in the commentary on the laws, that seem to emphasise similar suit lengths rather than high card strength. b) The commentary also clears up the fact that the TD should ascertain what action the offender will take and advise them whether they will consider the substitute call comparable before it is made. If West punts 3NT then East will be barred from bidding for one round, there will be UI and there may be lead penalties. (Law 31A2(b)) Note that since 1♣ might be made on 18-19 balanced hand with a weak suit and 3 clubs (in standard Acol), preparatory to rebidding 2NT, then 2NT is actually a call that is attributable to the 1 ♣ and hence is comparable. (Law 23C is still available)

There was also discussion as to whether the TD should advise a player (if asked) if his intended call would be treated as a comparable call (or showing the same denomination(s) at the lowest possible level.) This has now been answered in the affirmative. (At least for IBs, the assumption is that it will also apply for COOTS)

The 1st question is: what is the partnership agreement of 4♦? If there isn't one then the 3♦ caller knows there is a misbid and he then has to look at possible meanings 'carefully avoiding' making use of the information that the call is based on 'lots of diamonds'. IMHO this suggests that it should be taken as a massive Spade/ Diamond 2-suited hand rather than a splinter. The correct course of action will depend on the hand held, but it is possible that a) 5♦ may be a better contract or 4♥, cue bid might be appropriate (if partnership agreement is that new suits at the 4-level are cue bids. If there is an agreement then the 3♦ caller must adhere to it - which since they must carefully avoid making use of the UI, possibly means making a cue-bid on a hand where many players would not.

OK mea culpa.

I suppose he could call the Director, when the director appears ask to speak with him away from the table. After he explains the problem, the director asks SB (or whoever) to give his answers also away from the table. Obviously this gives UI to RR, however the nature of the UI isn't obvious and RR might not be able to work it out - and if he did he would not take advantage of it - he is scrupulously ethical (although I am sure his GA would, no doubt causing the A♣ to fall accidentally on the table.)

Well if French was the official language of bridge, I am sure I wouldn't claim as I don't know the correct words to say. I am not arrogant, just stating my opinion. Dura lex sed lex.

Since English is the official language of bridge, I would argue that it is up to all players to know English to a sufficiently high standard for their meanings to be understood. If the words "We have all the trump" have a doubtful meaning then we rule against the claimer as per law 70.

Certainly, especially in Kent, it would have been a good idea to alert and add "but this has never come up before. An immediate 2NT would have shown 17-19 points." With regard to the final decision to pass 3♠, East might have doubled if he hadn't the UI that his partner thought he held the minor suits - but since that would have led to a better score than EW actually got, there wouldn't have been an adjustment. (But the laws do suggest a PP if someone tries to takes advantage of UI). On a technicality - South DID change her call. She changed it from 3♠ over a potentially strong bid to 3♠ over an alerted call. The fact that she did so is (as usual) AI to NS and UI to EW. With regard to West's subsequent lack of bidding - since presumably West has no UI then they can do what they want. You might get hauled over the coals since you gave a description of your partner's bid and then didn't bid with the minor suits - which is one reason why I suggest that you qualify your position! The EBU states that "such cases are rare"- well maybe so, but they often appear on these (and other) forums.

never thought of it - playing IMPS then doubling for penalty is probably a good idea since you will get a small number of massive scores - playing pairs then maybe a X should be for TO to compete for the part score (if not more). Anyway - I think overcalling 2 Spades is not dumb - it was a gamble that failed - and we now have a pair trying to gain in the judicial process what they lost at the table. The 1NT caller would presumably have made the same call with 2=5 rather than 5=2 in the majors. I also feel that it was the 5 spades that was the reason for the overcall, not the fact that the 1NT could not have a 5CM. Any score adjustment would be pretty minimal (5% passing 1NT?)

As far as I can see - the information provided in answer to ChCh questions is authorised as it derives from the auction and are unaffected by any other unauthorised information. That still does not prevent OO from penalising ChCh and RR for breach of a 'may not' rule in 20G. However SB and MM have clearly been damaged by the infraction and so we can award an adjusted score under 72C.

You are always entitled at your turn to play to be advised of the contract and if (but not by whom) it was doubled (or redoubled) 41C - so the only extension is the opening lead.

I don't think the EBU has any rules on travellers - other than they should be available during the correction period for players to check that they have been filled in accurately. You can, of course get mixed-up travellers - and the same laws would apply re extraneous information. However I don't think there would be a penalty for EW (or the side that didn't take the incorrect traveller out of the board) since they had no opportunity to check that the traveller was the correct one - I mean - who would ask - "Do you agree that this is the traveller for board xx before I open it up". (The TD will have to check that the pair took the traveller out of the wrong board rather than the travellers were put in the incorrect boards (as happens more often when players mess around at the end of the round)).

Where? There are only two players in London as 'good' as RR - that makes 3 - hardly enough for a single table.

Are we at cross purposes here - There isn't a revoke on this thread - so you have asked a question and I have replied based on another thread. (I think). As mentioned - if the claim is agreed and then acceptance is withdrawn within the timescale in 63A4. At this point it appears that the TD has to adjudicate the claim, based on the defenders having revoked - but able to correct it.

Or being told they have to pass when partner bids out of rotation. It seems to me that the NOS lose any benefit they get from taking advantage of the ignorance of the OS, but the OS keep their losses as a pertinent reminder that next time they call the TD. Of course the OS might be the one that committed the infraction and the NOS the ones 'conned' out of due rectification

If OO determines that there was a BIT then it is very hard not to rule in favour of SB. Players should be taught to always try and play in tempo even when the play is obvious. If they are taught this while learning then they won't feel (unjustifiably) annoyed if the TD rules against them on 16B 73C and 73D when they enter the real world.

"Progression of players" only applies 1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. It seems that 'play' is not the same as 'play period'. "play:... 3. The period during which the cards are played. The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board. "play period: ... The play period itself ends when the cards are removed from their slots on the subsequent board (or when the last board of a round is quitted)."