RMB1

But a call may be corrected alerted although the intended meaning is not alertable. If the alerter does not know the meaning, or the meaning is undiscussed, or there is no agreement; but the alerter thinks a possible meaning is one that should be alerted; then she/he is right to alert. (At least, this is the intention of Blue Book 2D2 and 4A6.)

I don't think so, no. If you get frustrated by the opponents, you need to call the TD, get the opponents to give you the information/time you need. When all the disputative stuff is over, you need to re-focus, concentrate and get on with the game. (I am not pretending this is easy.) Opponents antics may be worthy of some sort of penalty but there is no legal route for an adjusted score or waiving of penalty because opponent's behaviour lead to a mechanical error.

In England, if partner uses the stop card and the next player calls immediately you get "10 seconds" (until partner quits the stop card) + "normal tempo" to call.

Why is it illegal not to have an agreement?

The EBU White Book has this: 8.41.4 Dummy not displayed properly If dummy is displayed incorrectly so that all the cards are not visible or a card is in the wrong suit, this is an irregularity. If the defenders are damaged by not seeing dummy’s cards when dummy is displayed incorrectly (according to Law 41D) they are entitled to redress – the defenders are not responsible for ensuring that all 13 cards are displayed. There is no penalty defined in Law 41D so the TD should award an adjusted score, according to Law 12A1.

In traditional acol, without transfers, 1N-3♥ was 5+♥ forcing: choice of games with 5 ♥ or slam try.

Still not clear. You give us the West hand (2nd hand: looked at convention card) but we aren't going to do anything about West's actions - they have generated UI by choosing the wrong time to make some point about convention cards. If this is a UI problem we need the East hand (4th hand: who bid 4♠).

Thanks. I hope I am not simply defending the indefensible. I would much rather the insufficient bid law did not require the TD to find a players intention when making an irregularity. I do not think the requirements of one law (which many think does not work) should not be use to create a precedent for all laws. I think the aim is to minimize the occasions when we have to rule based on uncorroboratable (self-serving?) statements from one side.

The critical numbers are the number of board sets and the number of tables. If the number of board sets is odd and less than the number of tables then you can play a web mitchell. If the number of boards sets and the number of tables is even then you can play a skip web mitchell. Playing two-board rounds you could have 30 boards (15 board sets) and anything more than 15 tables but you will need three sets of boards for odd numbers of tables (up to 31) to avoid sharing. Playing three-board rounds you have 33 boards (11 board sets) and anything more than 11 tables and you will need three sets of boards for odd number of tables up to 23 (and even more sets of board for more tables).

The EBU regulations attempt to deal with proper Passes improper denotations of Pass (e.g. tapping previous Pass) action denoting that the auction is over (e.g. picking up bidding cards) The problem is that [3] may be used to mean 3A. if it is my call, I pass, and the auction is over 3B. the auction is over already, if were my turn to call I would Pass as in [1] or [2] There is a difficulty in distinguishing [3A] from [3B] because it depends on a players habits, which will not be known by the opponents or the TD. The regulations seek to avoid having to make this distinction unless absolutely necessary. The unfortunate consequences of the regulation are a player picks up their cards as in [3A], not in the pass-out position, retains the right to call a player picks up their cards as in [3B], but is in pass-out position, may lose the right to call

I don't think it is question of what is more likely. The White Book position is that picking up the bidding cards can only be deemed a Pass in the pass-out position (or if the opening lead has been made). I think the ruling at the end of §8.22.2 is consistent with that position. If the last paragraph of §1.6.2 or any of §8.22.2 is unclear with respect to that position, perhaps someone can suggest a rewording.

"may" is important If partner has doubled, then whatever the player thinks, the player is not in the pass out seat and picking up the cards will not be deemed as a Pass.

North or South should not lead until the auction is over - so they should ensure that West has taken some action to demonstrate he has passed.

We adjust for use of Unauthorized Information from a hesitation even if the player is not aware of the law and the director is not called (so the director is not in a position to inform the player of his obligations).

Assuming South intended 3♠ as artificial (and that an artificial 3♠ is alertable), South should have corrected the failure to alert 3♠ at the end of the auction.

I think they apply to a session - so they apply to a mid-session break if the boards are still live. Even if a session has finished at one table (and a team is scoring up), a remark from that table is dealt with under Law 16C if overheard at a table still playing the session.

How can it be a simple ruling when the concensus is that the original TD got it wrong? North could convince me if a poll of his peers showed that almost all would play ♣K (without knowing about ♣A).

Isn't ♦A still in dummy as entry after clubs are cashed. [As PhilKing said]

Can't declarer require a spade lead from North? Also, North does have unauthorised information - so even without lead restrictions, he may not be allowed to play a club.

Nothing is the Laws about English.

> My question is would the final contract been 3♦ doubled or would E/W have any options? E/W have the option of trying to make 9 tricks. If E/W wanted to avoid playing 3♦X they should accept 2♠ > If West did bid 4♦ could South now double? Yes.

I don't think North has shown Heart preference: I think 5♥ showed 2 KC for spades, and bidding 6NT was preference away from hearts. Allowing for partner not to have bid according to partnership agreement is not illegal: it may provide evidence of a concealed partnership understanding but here the evidence is that there is no partnership understanding.

1H fert at all vulnerabilities 0-10, Pass/1C/1D are 3+/3+/5+ in the suit above, 1S is nat 5+, 1NT is 11-13 So a 5-card major/better minor (5/5/3/3) system with 1C/1D/1H shifted down by one. 1D fert NV only, 5-10. Pass is 0-4 or 11-13 BAL no 4+ M or 11-15 5-4 minors, 1C strong, 1M nat 4+, 1N 14-16 (V: Strong club with 1M 5+)

I think the OP was wondering that if you acted (X, 4NT, 5♦) now and partner bids (4♠, 5♣) do you pass (and do you Pass if opponents double).

There are different options: - board order verification (as above) - automatic board numbering (referred to by others) - automatic board numbering + manual entry of first board We use the last one for Swiss events where boards circulate and it can be used when boards are shared between a pair of tables.