PeterE

A system that distinguishes between balanced and unbalanced hands and adjusts the point strength according to the balance-type is not a HUM per se. But in Wayne's system he did not mention balance. In his system a hand with 9-10 HCP without a major may be balanced or unbalanced. And those hands are quite probably stronger than some balanced 8 HCP hands with a 4 card major. Therefore HUM.

Yes, definitely.

Yes, sorry :P this time it was me who couldn't read :( :blink: B)

No, Ed, definitely not. "Unintended" means, that the player knew (at the moment he called) what call he was going to make - totally "independent" of the previous bidding. Any attempt to remember to previous bidding (or it's meanings) is - per definition and per dictionary meaning of the Englisch language - a pause for thought.

What's the problem? Law 25A mentions "pause for thought" (pft). Pft starts when player A discovers his unintended call. Nowhere is said - neither regulated - how this player A becomes aware of his unintended call. In fact it may be even partner B saying something like "what on earth are you doing there, partner?" that may awake the erroneous player A. The TD might penalize player B for his gratitous remark but the main law to be applied stays Law 25A.

:) :ph34r: :ph34r: Of course it's illegal, but who cares? :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

Yes. No. Yes :) The TD applied Law 27 B2 as he judged (IMO correctly) that B1 does not apply. After any B2 application there is no way to Law 27 D (as you can read inside that law). But the whole case is a classic example for the application of Law 23. The only way to play in a low ♦ contract is to barr partner.

No, this it not a Law 23 case and I won't adjust. BTW: declarer already knew that East had a stiff diamond at most...

Here's the legal basis for it: And yes, afterwards opponents explain their subsequent calls in the multiway style shown upthread.

... just to make sure ... Are we in agreement, that LHO's retracted call and the inference thereof are AI to his partner (RHO) only and UI to player A and A's partner?

I agree with Sven.

Not exactly. In order to judge "balancing" without an LA you need [my numbers] 80 out of 100 players who take serious consideration on balancing _and_ not more than 5 out of 100 who would really pass. The outcome though will be the same :unsure:

True - except that in high level German Tournaments you'll lose 1/3 of your deposit, if you drop an appeal after filing it. But it's an (universal) right of every contestant to appeal a TD's decision at his own table (see Law 92 A) - without any conditions or restrictions. Re related question: No, the AC should (IMO must) not consider the effect on the overall standings. It's only the effect on the appeallants' (or their opponents') score on this board / incident that matters.

I second this. Of course everything said about English regulations is senseless given the relevant local regulations within the OP. What I wonder is that this pair not only plays "TO doubles" that do not have any shape requirements but that their suit overcalls are limited "to less than an opener because they would double with opening values". I believe - without being familiar with ABF habits - that this combination of doubles and limited overcalls might / should require a Pre-Alert.

"Law 27B3 requires offender's partner to pass whenever it is his turn to call" :(

In my eyes there are 2 possible ways to handle this situation: A. Law 13 A: "[...] the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played [...]". If the TD proceeds this way, he gives the ♥7 to the dummy and exchanges it with one of defender's cards in hand. The last two tricks will be played. 10 tricks to both sides. B. If the TD deems that correcting already played cards is not (longer) possible (btw: it would be interesting to hear a decision on that point by some LC), he follows As the (only) potential result was 10 tricks the TD awards 10 tricks to both sides.

see my ruling B upthread B)

The numbers you used are not that bad, IMO. Although _some_ here is meant to be from the totality. The numbers I was tought are 20% (1/5) for "significant" and 5% (1/4 of the significant) for "some".

I think Ed misread the OP and lamford misread the law. The first round of the auction was 1♠ (X) 4♠ (pass) and the second started with pass (3♦) Now the IBer changed his IB with a premature X. The TD should have read Law 27 C (cited above) and ask the next player (the 4♠ guy) whether he accepts the 3♦ (not the X). Now, A) if he accepts (seems to be his truly desire :)) the auctions continues at the point of 3♦ and the (second) X is cancelled and subject to Law 16 D. B ) if he does not accept 3♦, the (second) X stands and applies, which means that i) the (second) X is cancelled; ii) that player has to substitute it with a sufficient bid or a pass; iii) his partner is barred for the remainder of the auction; iv) Law 26 will apply, if the OS will be defenders; v) Law 23 may apply.

But I do know :( it's because the above is wrong. Law 16D is the (only) relevant law that deals with information "arising from a withdrawn action", a special law that takes priority of the "general" rest of Law 16. So, when Law 27 says that Law 16D does not apply this means that the provisions of Law 16D that make information UI for the offending side do not apply. It does not mean that the TD shall look for some other part of the laws to make that information UI. Remember, as the IB does not have any systematic meaning and as long as the offender did not say what he meant with his IB (otherwise that information will be UI for his partner !!) the IB in itself has no (real) meaning. But all players are entitled to guess the intended meaning. And this guess is AI to all.

First, Al, nobody here is "punished", only rectified :( And then the answer is in In example 2) 4♥ is "normal" and would be reached without any problem - both hands having an opening bid with hearts. So, the non-offending side is not damaged "through" the IB. In example 1) the offending side stopped in 2NT and reached a good result there. Without the (help of the) IB they never could have stopped in 2NT - 2NT probably being either invitational or Lavinthal. So, the non-offending side was damaged in consequence of the (help of the) IB and this damage should be rectified by the TD.

Did the TD and/or the AC made a poll among peers? I hope the TD did. If the AC overruled the TD (I don't know TD's decision), did the AC poll some other peers?

Yes and yes, Robin :)

Sorry, Robin, I don't want to blame the EBU, but I believe the EBU provisions are not correct. OK, it's a matter of regulation, but consider the following: The EBU enters an AVERAGE score for the weighted score and adjusts via correction points. Mmmh, though this approach might work for the two pairs that got the weighted score, it is very unfair (and IMHO illegal) for all the other pairs. Remember, the decision (in the given example in the EBU form) was, that EW was considered 3/10 down 1 in 3 NT and 7/10 plus 1 in 3 NT. These scores are "real" scores and all the other competitors should be compared with these scores. But as the example on the EBU form shows, all other competitors are simply factored via Neuberg (because there is now an AVG score on the sheet). I believe the scores should be calculated as followed: 1. Without the crucial (weighted) score the frequency table is: +100....4 times -600...14 times -630.....5 times 2. With the weighted score the frequency table should be: +100....4,3 times -600...14 times -630.....5,7 times 3. Scoring this frequency table results in ("European" MP for NS) -100....41,7 MP -600....23,4 MP -630......4,7 MP 4. The crucial score results in 30% of 41,7 MP + 70% of 5,7 MP makes 15,8 MP The crucial score is (rounded) the same as in the EBU example but all the other scores are not.

Reading the OP ISTM that a.) 3♣ was unintended; b.) South did not substitute 4♣ nor did he attempt to do so; c.) there was substantial pause for thought. Having the above in mind a legally trained player knows there's no basis for a "mechanical change" any more. In that case it's totally ethical to close your mouth and do not tell the TD things he did not ask for. It's too late to apply Law 25 A1, so I have no problem with South here.