sanst

What more information gives a pass in comparison to the 2♦ call?

What the director should have done - it's clearly not a law 25A case - is give the LHO the opportunity to accept the 2♦ call. If not, that call is withdrawn and the culprit should replace it with a sufficient bid or pass. If the replacement conveys the same information as the insufficient bid, the auction continues with no limitations for the partner, otherwise the partner is forced to pass throughout the auction. I think that passing conveys the same as 2♦, anything else bars partner.

It wouldn't take a genius to guess that the reason for the poll is a slow double, what else. Polling is a good idea, but often the reason for the poll is clear to experienced players.

East is dealer and the biding goes: 1♦-1♠-pass-double-pass-1NT-a.p. North doubles partners 1♠, South bids 1NT and the contract makes for +1, a bad result for EW. East has asked about the double ('negative') but only after the play remarks that something has gone wrong since you can't double your partner's bid. The TD is called, but what should he decide? Let the result stand and maybe give both sides a PP/DP or cancel the result since it has been reached by a inadmissible double? Law 36 decrees that the double and all subsequent calls should be canceled and 'the auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity', but I don't think that's practical once the hand has been played and a result is obtained. An artificial score seems not right, either, because there is a result.

You seem to forget that this declarer thinks that he is going to lose one trick. If you think that it's competent to lead your highest card in that situation, I'm wondering about your defenition of competent.

Interpretation is dependent on the individual TD, though there are guidelines. If a player claims saying "The rest is mine" and showing a hand with only trumps, he is supposed to play these top down, at least in Holland and, as far as I know, also in many other jurisdictions. But this case is different. Here the declarer expects to loose one trick to the last outstanding trump. Playing the 3 first is not abnormal, so one trick to the opps.

You read too much in 'pause', but 'thought' is the essential element here. Not the moment when nor the manner in which the player discovers his or her unintended call are decisive, but it should be without thought. How you're supposed to find out whether there was a thought, the lawmakers leave to the TD, probably because they don't know how to do that, either. Usually you should be absolutely certain that the call never was considered or that it was a mechanical error. In this case it looks rather probable that the latter is the case, unless the partner has 5+ cards in both majors. Anyway, I would prefer a change of law 25 which prohibits any change of call of unless caused by something accidental, like the cards sticking together, a mispull of a card adjacent to the right one or a insufficient knowledge of the language when bidding verbally.

I think so, too. In most cases the card is pulled quite consciously. After 2NT 2♣ or 4♥ as answer to 4NT. These were the situations that were given as an example when I was training as TD in 2007 in which a change of call under 25B1b was allowed. But I've no idea how you can gather that from the text. It's clear that the lawmakers wanted to allow a change which would not lead to a wild shot, since the insufficient bid doesn't give any extra information. I'm wondering whether in the next edition this law will be reformulated.

This law is notoriously difficult to apply, which the WBFLC knows, given the commentary by Ton Koopman. The RA's are advised to apply the law with a liberal interpretation. But what is the meaning of 4NT-(p)-4♥? A mispull can be rectified under 27A, but what to do if the player doesn't claim that? What is a liberal interpretation here? Since a layer is not supposed to hear partner's explanation, he should, if you allow a change of call under 27B1b, he has to replace the call by one that has the same meaning according to him.

Declarer thinks that N has to lead either a diamond or a club and obviously has forgotten about the jack of hearts. So, there is no reason to assume that W knows what other card N still has, even if she had previously shown out of diamonds. And the order in which the cards are laid down doesn't carry much weight with me, not without a statement. Both tricks to N. Why, o why find so many players it too difficult to claim properly?

Any decent player takes some time to think before playing in the first trick. So there's no UI. And I completely agree with you that your bidding is rather insane.

From the OP: "For 53 it is the longer." I don't waste time on answering questions not asked.

You should point out that the other minor could be 4. I would think that the opps might be surprised to discover that during the play if not forwarned. Anyway, alerting is no trouble and far less tiring than getting into a discussion with the opps and TD.

It's cmpletely dependant on the local regulations and I've not the faintest idea what these are in Hungary, let alone those of the setting in which you play. FWIIW, In principle not alertable according to the Dutch regulations, but I would prefer a prealert to warn opponents that in some cases you can open 43 in the minors with the shortest of the two and also that a 44 is not by definition opened with 1♣. In principle, because you have to alert any bid with a meaning that the opps might not expect.

Based on what law?

From the OP I gather that the concession was made by W facing his cards. It doesn't state that E immediately objected, but that both S and E suggested, whatever that means in this situation, that EW would make both tricks. In the light of the remark by S it wouldn't make a difference whether the play continues or the director decides the claim, since no one in his or her right mind would not play the ten in trick 12. I'm wondering how you think a player can object to the concession in a situation like this without having seen the cards that were faced? So yes, this applies.

Since I play superaccepts, 2♥ is a cue, (semi)GF and should show the ace in the light of the 2♣ by S. My bid would probably be 2♠, also a cue. What happens after that, is hard to predict. E might bid 3♠, 3♥, 4♥ or maybe even pass. Only a poll can make clear what are the probable alternatives and, based on that, you can weigh the scores.

Nonsense. There is nothing non-law-abiding in the remark of N, since the law allows it. And even worse, without any proof you assume that S could well be a cheat. Brigde is a game and supposed to be fun. You make it sound like a trial in a criminal court, based on "guilty unless proven innocent".

Not just Holland, but all of the Netherlands ;). In fact the Dutch Bridge Union more or less follows the WBF Alerting Policy, which means no alertable doubles, but alerting when possibly an unexpected meaning.

Please, don't give non relevant and confusing infomation. Now everyone is wondering why the declarer didn't pick up his 8 tricks when he had the chance to do so.Yes, the ♣5 is a MPC and yes, the TD should have told that there was an established revoke and that therefore after the play a trick would be transferred to the NOS, provided there was one to transfer. But If you want to appeal, you should get the facts straight and confirmed by at least the TD and preferably by the opps too.

I don't think that we have enough relevant information to give an opinion which isn't based on assumptions. We don't even know which jurisdiction is involved and what is usual there. Nevertheless I also will give my view. It's clear that there is MI and thus an infraction. Is there damage? As far as I can make out, NS caim so, and the TD agrees. But is the damage caused by the infraction? Not in my opinion. Just forget for a moment the MI. N knows that S has a strong, maybe even a very strong, hand with hearts. Without knowing more than that N has shown values S bids 4♥. Nowhere in the OP is given a indication that N thought it was a cue, let alone a cue for what? From thereon things go wrong for NS, N bidding 5♦ based on what? S thinks it's a invitation for slam and pulls 6♥ from the box, but S can deduct from the bidding that W must have spades and values, bidding as he did vul vs nv. 6♥ is both wild and gambling in my book and I don't see any connection between this bid and the MI, so both sides should keep their score. And yes, based on the facts given I would say that NS could appeal. Something else is the MI-case for EW. You could give them a PP or DP.

What's a FNJ?

Was this the same event as in The Rabbit's Rithmetic? If so, this pair might have violated Law 5A, if the TD didn't allow them to change seats. SB was North on board 4, now RR sits there.Rather OT: does SB really trusts RR to sit N?

For someone who can't even count to 13, it's certainly a very reasonable line of play to take the first trick with the ace, lead a small trump and getting confused the moment E plays the two. Now the Rabbit knows that he has made a mistake and, being not a complete fool, he must decide to finesse or not. W has only five cards in other suits than clubs, E 12. That makes a finesse a far better line of play than to play the hearts 1-1. Besides, weak players usually take a finesse whether necessary or not. So my decision is -1.You shouldn't accept a line of play that a declarer gives, if it's based on a false assumption, but go for the worst that is normal for the class of player concerned. If in any way your attention is drawn to the use of UI by S, a PP is in order. If you discover also that SB makes a habit of bidding quickly after the Stop card is removed with a more or less worthless hand, and meticulously waiting 10 secs with a better one, you finally have a valid reason to ban him forever as a cheat.

I would say that East's double is a bit, even more than a bit, odd. But there is nothing in the laws aganst it. That being said, I wonder wether W smells something, these two being semi-regular partners. I'm wondering about his hand. But if I were E, I would pass with this hand.