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.

Why do you believe this to be done ? - although it might be use- and helpful. In Germany we have a 1st level TD who is wrighting in our Bridge Magazine a page (rather monthly), called "The Little Tournament Director", where gets questions from some helpseeking persons and answers them. Unfortunately not everything he's writing is correct. But with his good reputation most of the readers will believe him. Nevertheless there never is any correction of any of his errors :P

No, mjj29, I disagree with most of the above. In Law 27 B1a there is no requirement for the substitute bid to be within the meaning of the IB. The only requirement is that both are not artificial and that both are made in the same denomination. Example: 1♠ - (2♣) - 1NT (not having seen the overcall) 1NT is made on (and was intended to show) 6-9 HCP, (nearly) any distribution 2NT now would show ca. 11 HCP and a ♣ stop. According to Law 27 B1a offender might substitute his IB with 2NT without further rectifications. As long as offender did not mention that he overlooked the overcall offender's partner is allowed to guess that offender was indeed making a 1NT answer to 1♠ and that he does not held 11 HCP and need not have a ♣ stop. All these inferences may be legally drawn by offender's partner, as Law 16 D does not apply. Of course the TD has to examine after the board whether the final contract was only reached with the help of the IB and he may adjust the score in that case.

I agree with David and I disagree with Sven. Law 27B1 a+b only work "normal" with no UI from the offender how he came to the IB. Only in that case offender's partner is entitled to make a (correct) guess about offender's intention. And only in that case there is no recourse to Law 16D. And furthermore: Law 16 is not a general law; it is an universal law. That means Law 16 is always applicable - as long, as it is not explicitely excluded. The reference in Law 27 B1a regarding the non-applicability of Law 16 D is for the IB itself (and the information guessed from it). It does - of course - not mean further UI is also allowed to be used.

I disagree. I (and IMHO the laws) make a difference between an unintended call and other errors in procedure during the bidding. When a player calls out of rotation or makes an ("intended") IB etc. and someone draws attention to that fact, it is true: Law 9B (and possibly 9C) applies. But when a player makes an unintended call (whether insufficient or not) and wants the TD to let that call be corrected, he has to (try to) change it even if Law 9B says the opposite. Special law prevails general law.

The options available are (leaving out the minor things): 1a. South may accept the IB, so ... 1b. South may not accept the IB, then 2a. East might have a Law 27b1a substitution and may chose that, so ... 2b. East might have a Law 27b1b substitution and may chose that, so ... 2c. East does not have any Law 27b1 substitution or he does not want to chose that, so East has to pass or make a sufficient bid, and West is barred throughout. These are the options that have to be explained before South decides whether to accept the IB or not. The TD does not explain in advance to South which are valid substitutions under 2b or whether there is a possible application of 2a. South may ask supplementary question about NS's system, but that's all.

There is no standard. I'll ask the IBer off the table what he was doing and his answer shows me whether he was "opening" or "overcalling". And yes, it is in the discretion of the TD.

Maybe it depends whether partner passed (or did not even was at turn) or whether partner showed a strong (balanced) hand already ????

Here's my way of dealing with it (and I had a couple of IBs today :( ) 1. When I'm called and I get aware of the IB, I tell the IBer not to tell anything about his motives at the table. 2. Then I ask the table, whether the IBer did already say anything about his motives (in which case there will be UI for his partner). 3. I ask the table whether anything else happened before or after calling the TD (today I suddenly was told, that next player already had taken the pass card out of his box - and returned it, of course). 4. Then I start my monolog: "South may accept the 1♥ bid, but he need not and he need not decide until I have told all the possibilities. If South accepts 1♥, that 1♥ will become a legal part of the auction and the auction goes on with and after this 1♥ bid. If South does not accept 1♥, East will have a couple of options that are dependent of what East meant with his bid and that can no longer be influenced by South. a) If East meant 1♥ as a natural bid and 2♥ now would be also natural in EW's system, East might substitute his IB with 2♥ and the auction (and play) would continue without further rectifications. b ) If East has a another call in his system that has the same (or a more precise) meaning as what he wanted to show with 1♥, East might substitute his IB with that call and the auction (and play) would continue without further rectifications. c) If East does not have those possibilities or does not want to chose on of those calls, he might make any sufficient bid ot he might pass, in which case West has to pass (in this board !) whenever it is his turn to call. Furthermore there might be lead restrictions for West, if East does not show the ♥ suit in the legal auction and EW become defenders." 5. Now I ask South whether he accepts 1♥ 6. If South does not accept, I tell East to put his cards face down on the table and to follow me a few steps off the table. 7. There I ask East, why he bid 1♥ and there I will first get the answer "I did not see the opening" and I will establish that he wanted to open the bidding with 1♥. 8. Now I will ask East what 2♥ will be (natural) and whether he has a different call in his system showing here the same as a 1♥ opening (or something more precise than that). 9. For the sake of argument, if he denies another possible call, I will tell South: "ok, when we will be back at the table, you might bid 2♥ and there will be no further rectifications (West is free to call), or you might pass or you might make any sufficient bid you like in which cases West will have to pass (in this board) every time the auction reaches him. We will go back now, and after taking your cards again you may bid whatever you want - whereupon I will tell the table, whether West must pass throughout or will be allowed to participate in the auction." 10. so be it. 11. If East decides to bid 2♥ I will have to examine after the board whether we are in Law 27D territory. 12. After having done all ths stuff, I will have to adjust my tournament schedule, as this table lost about 5 minutes ... :( :)

Nothing to add :) Peter Germany

Yes, sure :( But when someone writes "did not notice" in the same sentence as "Law 25A expired", I become suspicious ... :rolleyes: