RMB1

If you play a whole section without bridgemates you could even use travellers - then the players in both sections can slow the event down by looking at scores from other tables. :)

If East had ♦9x, the AC might give him a trick but fine him beers for the other 3 players, the TD and the AC.

I think you have to understand that just by asking these questions and thinking about these sequences, you understand more about the 2C/2D opening sequences than many of the more experienced players who play benji acol.

Although they do not want to be directors are they interested in these situations as directors or as players? For those interested in understanding directing, I would add movements at the top and combine unauthorised information, misinformation and claims in to one item "gathering the facts for a UI/MI/claim ruling". In priniciple, the rest are all read-from-the-book rulings but the problem with reading from the book is starting at the right place. There are important bits in earlier laws that can easily get overlooked. For revokes you have to start at Law 60 and having applied Law 62/63/64 you may then need Law 50 on penalty cards. For leads out of turn you have to understand what is going in advance of giving the ruling, as there are several apparently unrelated laws to apply. For calls out of rotation, you must make sure you read/apply/be aware of Law 28 and 29 before applying Law 30/31/32. The EBU or local directors can arrange seminars/courses on these topics - without it being a formal club TD course.

I have never liked the footnote. I agree with a desire to play bridge and have auctions untainted by misbids/mispulls, but the footnote does not sit well with the approach of the laws to information from partner. In the most recent unintended bid ruling, both the intended bid (4♠) and another bid (4♥) were visible. Nobody said anything but if they had I would rule the attempt to bid as an irregularity and any comment (by partner or opponents) was drawing attention to an irregularity. I do not recall a case where there is "clean" mispull (no reason to suspect a mispull) and partner makes an unnecessary remark that wakes up the unintended bidder. I expect that we would allow the change of call with no further penalty. But I agree that the law requires some further adjustment or penalty.

I would like to return to the OP. South bids, North says (in an even tone) "is that the call you intended to make?". Is North allowed to say that? Is there a penalty? Is South allowed to change his unintended bid? Is there a penalty is he does?

Are we really arguing about whether to issue a procedural penalty for failure to call the TD in a club? I think the TD should restrict himself to applying Law 67B2 - restore the card and assess any potential revoke penalty.

The relevant Law part is probably not well positioned - but has a convincing heading "LAW 17: THE AUCTION PERIOD" - "D. Cards from Wrong Board". The law is unclear about what happens if the error is discovered during the play - but if the offender would have passed throughout with the correct cards, it might be possible to play the hand.

I know that no UI was reported but that does not mean there was none. Players capable of confusing strong/unusual 2NT do not have agreements about what a subsequent double of fourth suit shows. I would not be surprised if the manner of the double of 3♠ alone carried sufficient information to distinguish a strong NT from an unusual NT.

I think you need to say more. At the two-level, three-level, ... ? Does that mean he needs an eight card suit to open 2♠? Or does it mean he only has a six card suit when he opens 3X?!?

Can I suggest that (for several reasons) this topic is in the wrong forum.

Does BS apply to GCC, mid-chart, etc.?

The result of the match cannot be known if there is a subsequent (scheduled) stanza (between the same teams) in which the substitute board(s) can be played. The "do not replay a single board" law only applies if the board is to played in a one-board stanza at the end of the match.

EBU: adjust Other (inc. ABCL): seek local advice about whether the question is considered UI and is considered to suggests action.

I see no grounds for adjustment. When South got to choose whether to change his final Pass, South was not misinformed. South is entitled to assume that North was correctly informed when he doubled - if North was misinformed when he doubled that would be taken in to account later. South chose to assume otherwise and that was a mistake. When North doubled he was no misinformed - by his own admission - he missed the alert and thought 3♣ was natural. Results stands. The TD might find the the alert was inadequately done but I find it difficult to recommend a procedural penalty for failing to alert properly when no alert was required. I guess that leaves Law 74D2 and Law 74F - alerting a call so that only one opponent notices is a gesture which may mislead - but I find it hard to believe that the semi-alerter could know what he was doing and what effect it could have.

I find it difficult to think of a signal that is not a function of what you have in your hand. Surely if it is a signal it must show show something, and the only thing you have to show is what is in your hand, so a signal must depend on (i.e. be a function of) what is in your hand.

This is precisely the sort of distinction that is already covered in the White Book, which is also the authority in our jurisdiction. WB 8.70.5:

If you have an agreement, expressed in points, about how strong the bid is then YES you should say how many points is your agreement. If your agreement about how strong the bid is is expresised in some other way, then you should explain the strength of bid is in the those terms. If you don't have an agreement about the strength of the bid, you should say we have no agreement about the strength of the bid.

Devil advocate: 3♥ shows more doubt about strain that 4♥ because there is room for partner to bid 4♦ over 3♥ which could be raised to 5♦.

Is it at all clear that the information from 3♥ could suggest bidding 5♦, under whichever law (Law 16B or Law 27D)?

Did the TD allow the change under Law 25A, ruling that 3♥ was unintended; or did the TD rule that a change to 4♥ was permitted and would not silence partner, under Law 27B1(a).

The appropriate law is Law 71.2 "Concession Cancelled" and the wording is the same in WBF and ACBL laws "... if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards." Law 69B2 applies to the other side withdrawing their agreement to trick claimed by the opponents.

Others have addressed the question of logical alternatives, but I am worried (with PhilKing) whether there was UI. Requiring to see the trick when you have not quitted the trick is part of the legal procedures (Law 66A) and not specified there to be unauthorised. For there to be unauthorised information, we need the "but see B1 following": the TD must determine that there was a unmistable hesitation or special emphasis in requiring the cards to be faced.

No. Declarer intended to play jack1 to trick1, and called for "jack" to achieve that. Declarer intended to play jack2 to trick2, and called for "jack" to achieve that. I think it clear which jack declarer intended to be played to trick2. I am not saying that declarer's intention may go back to the previous trick - there is no question of his intention on trick1. I am saying that declarer's action on the previous trick is evidence of his intention on the next trick.

You quoted Law 46B3(a) but all of Law 46B is subject to the qualification "except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible". If we decide that declarer intended to designate one jack then the other jack, then I think we should apply Law 45C4(b).