RMB1

I am sure East would know what was going on when West bids 2♥ without the announcement, he has UI but I don't think passing 2♥X is a logical alternative. West probably had some idea what was going on when he passed 2♠, and prehaps should have "corrected" the announcement, but has not UI so can pass. I am sure North knew what was going on, and was not really misinformed, and was going to keep whatever he managed to score at the table.

Because that's what they are taught?

There is a WBFLC minutes - quoted in the EBU White Book.

OTHER. When you're unsure of the meaning of your partner's call, but there is a systemic meaning, opponents should have the power right to ask the TD to investigate, including asking him to explain its systemic meaning

1987? (1975? 1963?? ...)

To grab a phrase from another topic Or to reword the topic title: does anyone disagree with the ruling (table result stands)? To adjust we would need to decide that - some bid at 3♠ or above was a logical alternative (because I think Pass is suggested over 3♠); OR - some bid between 2NT and 3♥ was a logical alternative AND was suggested by the unauthorised information.

A late call for a ruling may make it harder to establish the facts; and the TD may be (more) sceptical that non-offenders were damaged if they did not realise at the time.

Not wishing to speak for Aardv, but ... How about: Making calls which neither member of the partnership understands/agrees is discourteous, and will annoy and spoil everyones enjoyment. And also:

Were there screens? - in which case a TD call at the end of the stanza is entirely reasonable. Otherwise, I think South should [call the TD at the end of the auction and] explain that he was not sure about the meaning of 3♦

I don't think c=0 is safe. A naive fit to the data looks something like: trumps - (trumps - 16.5)^2/24, where c <> 0.

We would really need all the hands to know what to rule. South has unauthorised information, that North thinks South has a "strong two". The information suggests passing 3D, so 3H appears legal. There is no reason to adjust for unauthorised information, certainly not to 3H. East might have bid if he had known South was weak, but North will probably keep bidding because he thinks South is strong. Without the hands, it is difficult to know, but the final contract might be 4C(E), 4CX(E), 4H(S)C(E), 5CX(E), 5D(N). There may be reason to adjust for misinformation, and it could be a weighted outcome of some of these contracts. Scoring a weighted score at matchpoints is not easy to explain and it is best if the scoring software does it for you. There is an explanation at http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/publications: Weighted Rulings and more details in the White Book.

West's call accepted the insufficient bid, so all calls are part of the legal auction. The last bid is 3NT by South, so the contract is 3NT and the declaring side is North/South; North was the first of North/South to bid NT, so North is declarer.

Law 6D2 So it still has "boards not shuffled from a previous session"

Is this how we want to rule in the case of the "slow insufficient bid" (ignoring the slow/UI aspect): 1H-4H, 4NT-5S, 5H ?

Isn't there a danger that if he shows us the hands we can inspect the hand records to find his opponents?

Simpler would be the age-old recipe of cancel the board and award AVE+ to non-offenders, AVE- to the offenders.

The TDs need to think like the Probst Cheat. The PC could avoid any lead restriction by creating his own penalty card which "must be played"; so the TD should expect there is a law to prevent such manoeuvres.

If several meaning are possible, then there would be no advantage to the offending side as long as the replacement call matched one of the meanings - because the insufficient bid is less informative than the replacement.

"East still has some problem with what has happened and I found what he said objectionable". Then the TD can then investigate what was said and how it was said, and deal with the bad behaviour.

I have attempted to move the thread-creep re meaning of insufficient bids to Changing Laws & Regulations. Moderator: perhaps the thread-creep re revoke penalties/rectification can be carried on somewhere else as well.

Not that I am aware of. In this case, I suggest that the hesitation was unrelated to the insufficiency and that this reduces to a hesitation blackwood case. I imagine that 5♥ was bid was if the previous bid showed 2A+TQ but was below 5♥. A slow 5♥ shows doubt about signing off, so suggests slam. Judging logical alternatives is harder. In the absence of the hesitation, 5♥ is a sign-off which rules out bidding but South's decision to accept 5♥ suggests slam is making.

(Taking this discussion out of "Simple Rulings".) I think the TD can assign a likely meaning* for the insufficient bid without investigating the intended meaning. We imagine the insufficient bid was made in one of the following auctions Opponent's previous bid was a pass Offender's suit bid out-ranked the opponent's bid Partner's previous bid was a level lower Offender's bid was a level higher If these plausible alternatives give similar meaning for the insufficient bid, this is the meaning the TD should ascribe. If the plausible alternatives give wildly different meanings for the insufficient bid, the TD should decide there is no likely meaning. * Assuming a re-formulation of Law 27 in terms of "likely meaning", "apparent meaing" or even "information conveyed" by the insufficient bid.

Did NS tell the director of West comments/behaviour?

No. Because to judge the (unauthorised) information from the insufficient bid we have to judge what is suggested to (peers of) the offender's partner, which can be judged without having to address the nebulous concept of "meaning" of an insufficient bid, which current practice is equating with intended meaning.

I think they are regulated separately for reasons of presentation: longest-suit opening 1m are included in "general purpose" openings (which exclude major suit canapé); but canapé 1m have more restrictions on what they can be mixed with.