RMB1

So, in principle, there is UI from the failure to alert 2NT. This suggests running from 3NTX. But if West is a member of the apparent majority who would not alert an unusual 2NT then perhaps there is no UI.

I think the OP might be interested in the "demonstrably suggested" which might be answerable without seeing the hands. What meanings of 2NT are/are not alertable here?

+1

Did North deal and pass or did East deal and open (with no preceding Pass)?

Wasn't Law 71C in the previous law book? The current Law 71 has no lettered parts but does have numbered parts.

I presume this was the case gordontd was referring to earlier.

Which trick do you think is defective? I think the spade was played to the third round of spades and South did not play a card to the last round of spades, so the latter trick is defective.

I wanted to know (about 2♦-2NT-3m) to determine what responder would do, but it appears that 2NT was just passing the time of day with no agreed responses. If East takes 3m as a feature then he will be encouraged but with no agreements he can't find out about a fifth heart. East is very likely to bid 3NT which West can pass. Does South have enough to double 3NT? Can East redouble, to play? More knowable unknowns. I fancy adjusting to a weighted mixture of 3NT-3 NS +150, 3NTX-3 NS +500, 3NTXX-3 NS +1000.

Systemically, what are the responses to 2NT?

and East could know that people will hesitate with the queen because in some situations it is right to cover an honour with an honour even if this is not such a situation, and some players will take time to recognise what the position is.

Is that what the stop card is for? - to prevent insufficient bids by opponents? Would ops be allowed/required to pause over jump bids?

The general point of when a weighted score is allowed is to look at the wording of the law. If a law talks about awarding/transferring tricks then this is whole number of tricks. If the law talks about adjusting the score (and/or references Law 12C) then we can award a weighted score under Law 12C1(c) In this case, the misleading tempo/shrug is covered by Law 73F which ends "the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)", so a weighted score is allowed.

I don't understand why these two sentences don't contradict one another Hence the use of "But"?

In some circumstances, West has gained an option: he gets to play the hand on one lead (which may be right) and he gets the TD to play the hand on another lead.

I would consider a procedural penalty against North for failing to correct the explanation - putting down prematurely seemed to be an attempt to prevent any correction.

28 boards at 12 tables - playing 12/13/14? rounds - is called Blackpool in the EBU. The 13th round is a revenge and to play the 14th round (also revenge of course) there is an irregular move.

I think it would be clearer if the questions were reversed: 1) what would seriously consider / possibly bid - with multiple answers allowed 2) what would you bid - with only one answer allowed

He is going to throw a good heart on the good ♦10 (:))

If the concession is accepted and the declaring side later want a trick the TD can apply Law 71.

If a pair has a way of showing a singleton after a 1NT opening: is the call that shows the singleton an illegal agreement? is a 1NT opening an illegal agreement if they subsequently show a singleton? is a 1NT opening an illegal agreement even if they don't show a show a singleton on this auction?

Rik Mayall (actor/comedian) - no longer a young one

Frances' last line suggests she meant to write something different on the previous line.

FYP. There is quite a big box on the EBU card for other doubles. Was there a "stop" before 4♠? I am surprised a slight BIT was noticeable after a stop-bid pause.

I agree. In a different world, South would have called the TD as soon as they reacted and "it was now clear everyone at the table, notably including N, that 2NT had been intended as Unusual". South should have admitted to a breach of Law 20F5(a). ("A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.")

If North was about to bid 5♣ and that would lead to a good score for the opponents, and South could have known that bidding would be bad, and South's intervention effectively prevented North from bidding, then there must be a case for Law 23.