RMB1

In this context, an "EBU director" (sometimes an "EBU panel TD") is a TD who officiates at an EBU organised event, rather than an event organised by counties or clubs. They are also available to give rulings over the telephone for matches played privately: there is a list on the EBU website. Including trainees, there are approximately 40 such TDs.

Does no one (seriously consider) double?

The 3♠ stands as the first bid of the auction. On the next round North can make any bid that if sufficient over West's bid: including bids below 3♠ or 3♠ itself. If North does not have bidding-box cards to indicate his next bid he should ask the other players or TD for help.

Didn't analyse the play, just assigned the number of tricks in 3NT (OP: "and made ten tricks")

Did they assume that the "natural" 4♣ had shown some diamond tolerance?

It is just possible that 3NT is the systemic transfer break but I would rule that 3♠ and 4♦ were logical alternatives. Both East and West have unauthorised information and I do not think the auction should stop below 6♠, for example: - - 2NT - 3♥ - 4♦ (values with spade support) - 4♥ (no spade control, with hearts agreed) - 4NT (RKCB for spades) - 5♥ (A + K of hearts, with hearts agreed) - 6♠ - 6NT (?)- Pass 6NT -2

Asking the 3♥ bidder directly/initially can appear to be an attempt to get the bidder to describe their hand rather than their agreements, and could be used to intimidate an unknowledgeable opponent into saying more than they should.

OT I haven't seen cigarettes at a table (except a garden table) for nearly 10 years, at a bridge table for 20? years.

I wonder if the SB is quoting WBFLC minutes from 2000, before law 25A was changed to use the word "unintended" instead of "inadvertent"? (If the SB says that the WBFLC minutes must still be relevant because they are quoted in the EBU White Book then all I can say is that those minutes are on my list for deletion.)

Returning to the main point, the problem is to find a law that allows the TD to cancel a scheduled board before it is started but that law does not allow the the TD to cancel a board that has been started.

Sorry for the distraction, I was going down someone else's tangent of what happens if they start after the clock.

Law 8B1 does not prohibit a TD from instructing a late table to abandon the board and for there to be a "progression of players".

If the clock time for starting new boards had passed, then Law 90B8 says that starting the board is an offence; does this give the TD power to cancel the offending actions?

(More preaching to the choir) I found this in the law book (Law 63A) To me, this makes it very clear the designating and leading/playing are different in law.

I think a distinguishing feature of Acol is that 1M-2m is only forcing for one round (forcing to 2M).

It is very rare for declarer to make a designation (inadvertent or unintended or otherwise) when playing a card from his own hand. Note Law 45C(b) uses "unintended" not "inadvertent". An example of an intended designation would be : declarer says "I am going to play the ace of spades" and then plays the ace of spades from his hand. An example of an unintended designation would be : declarers says "I am going to play the ace of hearts" and then plays the ace of spades from his hand (and then says "oh, I meant to say ace of spades"). I do not think I have ever heard declarer designate a card to be played from his hand. It is safe for players and TDs to only be concerned with Law 45C4(b) when declarer designates cards to be played from dummy.

Pick your oppo or TD! If you told me "I knew what I was doing when I bid <whatever>, I knew what the agreement was, as partner correctly explained, my bid was a psyche" - I would probably believe you.

David expressed an opinion on his website at the time. (I googled "David Stevenson" "Vanderbilt" and "*****" :)) I can type the word into google but not here, apparently.

West has unauthorised information whatever explanation is given. Passing 3♦ looks like a logical alternative. Any explanation that West might have the minors suggests bidding to show the majors. I adjust to 3♦

I think this is an unlikely reason for the origin of penalty tricks for revokes. I suspect that even before bridge there were penalties for revokes in games like whist. The only scoring unit was tricks and I suspect the penalties for revokes were a draconian number of tricks. Following suit was one of the few rules in such games and the penalties were there to ensure they were taken seriously. The revoke penalty in bridge started off as three (more?) tricks and has reduced over time.

(fixed)

1.6.2 was imported from the Orange/Blue Book, which explains the certain amount of redundancy. There should be a reference from 1.6.2 to the greater detail of 8.22.2.

I think the recent footnote to Law 25 is clear that Law 16 does not apply.

I don't believe any of this is important but it is bizarre that in all words in Law 18 B/C/D the law makers could not find room to say that bids must be sufficient.

I don't think the twinkling-ness is relevant, Law 24 says "every such card be left face up on the table until the auction period ends. ... If the offender becomes a defender every such card becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)". I am not sure that "unless the Director designates otherwise" in Law 50, applies to Law 24. Many players can not cope and do not enjoy declaring when they have multiple penalty cards to play as well, and do not make any more tricks. If I thought declarer was such a player I would suggest that they might like to waive the penalty card rectifications (Law 81) and have the cards picked up. La 81C5 requires "for cause", I think if declarer thinks they will not enjoy/benefit from the penalty cards this is sufficient cause.