sanst

As usual a most unlikely story. “No time to wash his hands”? Try the other. That being said, it’s the dummy who is the first to draw attention to the irregularity, which should also be taken into acoount. EW gain through the knowledge of the mpc and that advantage should be taken away. N deserves a PP, SB should be banned from the venue. Why Folkestone of all places? Experienced a very sticky pavlova there? And eating Pavlova? Did they serve the corpse of the ballerina, who has been dead for the best part of a century? :)

It's dependent on your jurisdiction. Over here, in Holland (Europe, not Michigan) you can have note with contract, declarer and lead, but it shouldn't be readable by those who still have to play the board. You can ask the others what the contract is. But you should not put a bidding card in such a position that others can see what contract you're playing, so not in the middle of the board or sticking out of the bidding box.

That’s not what Law 23C says. The “could have been aware” clause is in Law 72C. I’m wandering what would have happened had ChCh sitting S and SB W. :D

[hv=pc=n&s=sa72hj5dajt72cj72&w=sjhq974d9653ck984&n=st984hakt62dkqct6&e=skq653h83d84caq53&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1h1sppp]399|300[/hv] South had opened the auction with a pass out of turn. The TD explained the options, W didn't accept the POOT and N started with 1♥, E 1♠ and all passed. Down -2. S explained her pass as being comparable, where 2♦, the systematic call, was not comparable and neither was 2NT, double or 2♠. 1NT was too much of an underbid and was therefore rejected. She didn't like 3NT with only 1 spade stopper and a partner who might have a weak, 10 ... 12 HCP, hand. EW had a bad score, because one pair bid 4♥ and made an overtrick, the five other NS pairs had less than 200. Is this just bad luck or do you use Law 23C, since S would never had passed 1♠ without the POOT.

Your reasoning is based on ChCh having “the ethics of a snake”. I’m not knowledgeable about those ethics, AFAIK snakes might be the most ethical beings in the universe, just unlucky enough to be creared the way they are, but it’s clear that ChCh is a cheat, at least according to you and SB. Then there is a simple question to be answered: why let him play at this club? If he is a cheat, he should be banned, if he isn’t banned, the club doesn’t consider him a cheat and neither should the other players until proven otherwise. If that is the case and he is still admitted, you should avoid this club.

So, does it say that the poster thinks it might have been a psych? Not in my book. Het just states a fact, i.e, in this jurisdiction you’re not allowed to psych a strong 2♣. And he asks what should be done if it was a mistaken, not corrected bid. That’s the question in hand and that should be answered.

I don’t think you can read in the OP that this was maybe a psych, so there’s no use going that way. As Vampyr wrote: “Too many players are unaware that they can correct a true mispull before partner calls”. And yes, N should have called the director, but probably thought that it wouldn’t make any difference. The only relevant question to answer is “Did or didn’t S used the UI from N” and without information about their agreements and the meaning of the 2♥ bid (was that alerted and/or explained?) I can’t answer that and I doubt whether you or anybody else can.

Why do you bring up psyching here? It’s an obvious misbid and the point worth discussing is whether S has made use of UI or not, and that depends on their methods and agreements. Unfortunately, we don’t know what these are. Neither do we know what East’s 2♥ means, but, by the look of it, both majors. If that’s the case, I would consider pass the logical call, “Wait and see”.

There’s no understanding about the 4♣ bid and I would, sitting N, need some time to figure out what S is trying to convey. The 5♣ doesn’t suggest anything else than that N thinks that S has clubs and spades, and suggest certainly not bdding on. That S never thought about a club contract is also clear, not with this spade holding and only two clubs opposite a balanced hand. Six spades is a gamble that makes with this distribution and finessing twice in hearts. With the queen E and the ace W 6♥ is doomed.

After a 2♥ opening bid by your LHO your partner is not likely to have 4 hearts and even if he does, you shouldn’t be keen on a hearts contract.

Everyone has the right to defend him or herself. So you should establish what the declarer knows about the outstanding cards. If he says “E has the king of clubs singleton and W has a club lower than the ten”, I’m Inclined to believe him if such a statement is in accordance with his level. That would also be the case if the player makes an other statement that is believable given the level. That doesn’t mean that the dummy should get away with this behavior and therefore I give a PP. That can be a warning, but if the player is experienced or prone to this kind of offences, it will be more serious than that.

Pran mentions the appropriate laws, but doesn’t answer the question about the number of tricks. The TD should find out whether the declarer has an accurate idea about the remaining cards. If so, the lkast two tricks go the the declarer, otherwise I would give EW one trick, which, I think, is the most likely decision. The dummy gets a PP, as a warning.

AFAIK there’s nothing in the Laws that allows you to find out whether a call or play was intended or a mistake. Law 75C implicitly states so IMO. If screens are in use, S asks W about the agreement without E knowing that - well, that’s the idea, anyway - so nobody will find out what it was till the board is played or the hand of the dummy is on the table. As I wrote before, a misbid or any other mistake by your opponents might damage you, but there’s no redress. And more often it’s advantageous to the NOS.

What good would that do? As Pran wrote, you can should wait for ten secs before you make your call, you can ask about the agreement, what more do you want and for what reason? You only make it possible for your opponents to give information to each other which would probably be UI and, even worse, you might give your partner the idea that you wanted to make a call you can’t make now, which also conveys UI.

And what would you ask? “Why didn’t your partner use the stop card?” Or “What are your agreements for a jump bid without the stop card?” :lol:

Quite often an opponent makes a mistake and you have to deal with it. If you’re damaged, it’s just bad luck, but more often it’s to your advantage.

A TD is not a laywer and a bridge club not court of law. You don’t have to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that the infraction was deliberate, but you should be convinced by the player’s words and behavior that it was. The description of this - admittedly theoretical - case and Lamford’s words I’m certain enough to assume a deliberate action. So “guilty until proven otherwise”, which is a case for an AC. The TD can even make that appeal. In the case of an unintended call it’s impossible to prove that the call made was never in the mind of the player, that he never intended it. But from the circumstances and the explanation we sometimes decide that the call was unintended.

There’s Law 72B1: “A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.” That’s exactly what ChCh did and so the TD is obliged to take away the advantage gained. On top of that I would award a stiff PP for this behavior. But the visitor is also to blame, not only for exposing his cards, but for leaving the table before the round was called. A bowl of berries doesn’t count as an emergency, so he should have stayed at the table. Exposing the cards in this situation wouldn’t count as an extremely serious error, but leaving the table for a stupid reason might also lead to a PP.

The queen becomes a MPC but the declarer can’t ban a lead from the hand with such a card, so you shouldn’t have worried about that.:)

What anyone here might or might not do, is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether there is a logical alternative as defined in Law 16B1(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.” To me it seems that that’s the case, since 42 out of 130 pairs ended in 4♥. But here a poll would have been necessary and I’m surprised that this wasn’t done in a tournament of this size.

So you’re final call will be 10NT. I don’t know what you considered a ‘cold slam’, but nine tricks don’t count as one in my book. Or means cold -800?

Why? What makes you think that your hand is worth more than you’ve already shown? Partner can be without values and only have a long hearts suit. Or are you a descendant of king Charles II, who, according to Jenny Uglow in her book on the Restoration, was ‘A Gambling Man’. :)

Why would W expect any values at all? Passing in NT with a long suit and no values means that there are no tricks to be made, whereas there are in a suit contract.

BTW, I don’t think the diagram is correct. Together N and S have five hearts including Q, J and ten, therefore there is a loser in hearts, plus the diamond ace, which makes it impossible that there are twelve tricks in 6♥, but there are in 6NT.

I also think that it was a lucky shot, but, on the other hand, it’s the question whether W would have made this call if E had put 4♥ on the table without hesitation. Which makes a poll desirable. If that’s impossible I would probably decide for an AS based on 4♥. W has shown his nine trick hand and E didn’t tell anything than that he has a very weak hand (no weak opening call), so ‘pass’ is a logical alternative. From W’s point of view E can have the same hearts and no honours at all. It has nothing to do with directing, but I’m quite surprised by the auction. Why didn’t W call 2NT, which would have given E the opportunity to show his hearts?