PeterE

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjt942ha763d5c3&w=s73hj852dk864ck85&n=skhkqt9daqjt92caq&e=s865h4d73cjt97642]399|300[/hv] Declarer, South, plays in 7NT on a spade lead. Overtaking the ♠K with his Ace he puts down is cards, saying "all mine." TD! The TD is directing the first national league; all players are of (very) high standard - although some of them cannot count :rolleyes: Your decision, please.

The regulation is quiet about that. It says a player, who wants to open the bidding on the 2- or higher lever or who wants to make a jumpbid, has to say "Stopp" (or put out the stop card). Next player may only call after stopper says "Go" (or removes the stop card) after appr. 10 seconds (no more word about stopper). There is no mention of "free thinking time" and all the regulation deals with are stopper's LHO's rights and duties.

I do not disagree for Germany. If (stopper's) LHO refuses to stop (when stopping is mandatory) and bids prematurely, this gives UI to (stopper's) RHO. What the discussion in Germany was about (and mgoetze is referring to), was whether stopper's partner has the right to (at least) the same 10 seconds for thinking after partner's STOP. And my opinion is, that he has no such right.

no, Law 21 B2, but the TD might award an adjusted score afterwards, if he deems that the information within the 2♥ bid damaged the non-offending side. no, definitely not, Law 21 B2 mmmh ... what in 2♣, unalerted, might have influenced partner not to bid then and to bid 2♠ now with an alerted 2♣ ?? (just out of interest). But I accept this as the basis for your questions.

This is exactly my (and the laws') position :lol:

Robin, I had the same "Probably No, see above" first written and then reread the question Now we have a point of knowledge about North' habits (that are unknown to E/W) and now N/S might have a advantage using this knowledge. But of course in principle South may anticipate a psych by North.

Of course you can. Suppose the contract at the other table was N:6♦+1 Now, if you judge that all of N/S' damage was self-inflicted, you may split the score in (the exact score depends on your decision) N/S: W:5♥-2, +200; and E/W: N:6♦+1, -1390 N/S' team then score +200 -1390 = -1190 => -15 IMP E/W's team then score -1390 +1390 = 0 => 0 IMP If they score - say - 35:14 IMP on the other boards (from N/S' view), then N/S' final score is 35:29 IMP (16 VP with - say - 16 boards played), whereupon E/W's final score is 14:35 (10 VP).

Yes, Law 40 C1. North is a non-offender and not under any UI constraints. Probably No, Law 40 C1 :( ([...] provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents [...]) No, East could not have forseen that situation No, same as above No, because a strong 1♣ has no denomination that can be repeated (Law 29 C).

He may do so, but if it works, the TD (I) will award an adjusted score afterwards. Furthermore I will issue a PP (unless South is very inexperienced - obviously not this South) because of blatant use of UI. As you correctly said, it is UI for South that North has no opening in hand. Only with this (U) information South concluded that EW might (will) have a game to reach.

The English Orange Book in 7B4 says: Guessing the EBU uses the word 'should' the way "defined" in the Laws (although I found no mention of it): It is my believe to issue PPs in cases of aggravated circumstances (either severe infractions or worse consequences (e.g. need to give adjustments with more than 100% for a table (60-60)).

Agree with Sven (and Robin in the meanwhile) here. Perhaps I will tell 2♥ bidder he should look at RHO's bidding cards as well and not only whether there have been any supplementary non-bidding-cards (STOP and ALERT). The non-stopper will get a PP because he "created" this mess.

In an AC I would like to ask the TD to reconsider his decision, namely to substitute the words "may have" with "has" :) The combination of these two boards is unbelievable (or just a double coincidence ??) and I would like to have a very strong lecture on EW. Deposit forfeited, also a belated PP seems to be in order.

No, for (at least) two reasons: 1. If you call a TD every time there is a pause you'll need 1 TD for every 3 tables - maybe more 2. If there's agreement about the pause the TD can do nothing more than establish this agreed pause - perhaps advise partners of pausers not to use UI - and leave the table - hoping never to be called back again ;) It was a deliberate decision of the WBFLC to introduce the sentence "he should summon the TD when play ends" to show what they thought to be the right moment.

Yes, I would like to ask the TD under what law(s) he made his ruling. If the TD was "convinced" that EW had no agreement about 2♣ after interference, than this 2♣ was not alertable. At the table it was not alerted - so no infraction. If North had asked about the meaning of 2♣ he should (according to the TD) have gotten the answer "no agreement after interference, forcing w/o interference". But North did not ask - so no MI and no infraction either. I second EW's Basis of Appeal under i)

hmmm, is Kx not a stopper by itself ?? I'm with Robin. There are too many "if"s as to be able to give a straight ruling.