RMB1

"UK near London" says the OP's profile, so let's guess EBU. The EBU Neubergs (applies the formula above / factors the frequencies) even for small numbers of boards (greater than one) in a subfield.

The plausibility of the using L12C1d is undermined a bit by the fact that the regulation is much older than L12C1d, and there was less justtification in earlier law books. But as someone trying to finalise 'EBU White Book 2013' where these regulations now live, I would like to think they are wonderful regulations not one word of which should be changed. :)

2C-2D-3S shows 4 S and longer diamonds 2C-2D-3C-3D(waiting)-3M shows 4 Ms and long clubs

In my lack-of-innocence (cynicism) I thought screens were introduced to stop cheating: deliberate communication between partners (e.g. finger signals). The original screens (1976?) were extended to the floor after "foot tapping" cheating allegations.

I think very few would Pass and (without the benefit of consultation) would rule Pass is not a logical alternative. Double is suggested over 5♣ as it allows for more of the hands partner might hesitate with. So I allow 5♣ and table result stands. (and I don't have to think about the play in 4♠ :))

I would try to work out if North was joking. If not joking then: - at a club night: speak to the TD away from the table - in a match played privately: expect to win the match - at a congress: perhaps call the TD, perhaps speak to the TD away from the table. If I call the TD, I think I would go for the odd behaviour / spoiling enjoyment line: "We weren't damaged but I don't think North should be saying things like that".

In some clubs perhaps but I do find this statement incredible. I have never seen a ruling in a club where both members of a partnership have psyched on the same board. I think there must be few clubs where such rulings (leading to an adjustment or not) can be routine.

The EBU does not encourage clubs to have a publicly readable psyche book - the procedure of what a TD does when asked to record a psyche at club level is up to the club. Psyche forms from EBU events are not made available outside the Laws and Ethics committee.

Is this encouragement documented anywhere?

South should call the TD at the end of the auction and explain that the explanation of 2♦ does not match South's understanding. The contents of dummy is evidence of misexplanation, failure to correct misinformation at the end of the auction by the declaring side, and use of UI. So, yes: defenders should call the TD. 4♠-4

I think Law 16A/B tells you to Pass I think Law 73C tells you to Pass I do not think it is close

Some of us think that it is general bridge knowledge that 1NT (not Pass) 2D/2H (Pass) 2H/2S means that partner thinks 2D/2H was a transfer. We would rule that the UI does not suggest anything and allow any call by responder.

I have replied in a new topic "EBU White Book August 2013" in Changing Laws & Regulations.

Note the :) earlier Shorter means less repetition,less redundancy, less irrelevance. In particular, less saying the same thing in L&E comment, WBFLC minutes and further commentary.

I am editing the EBU White Book for August 2013 and I am minded to add "(including dummy)" after "any player" at the appropriate point in the regulation. (But only if it does not flow the text on to another line - my main editorial instruction was to make the White Book shorter. :))

I don't think I can be misinterpreting anything - I simply reworded the original question! The OP may be misunderstanding the charts - in which case a good answer would be "the OP is misunderstanding the charts".

A different questions is: Are you allowed to agree to open a 1 bid with 9 pts in 3rd seat. The General CC says 1♦ and 1♣ needs 10 pts.

See EBU Laws and Ethics news: Orange book to be shorter (half the length) and no longer orange (blue). But the examples are still there.

But I suspect you are discrete mathematician - even in the sense blackshoe uses.

A player was suspended for the remainder of a session, in a multi-session pairs event. After further discussion with the TD and the chief TD, this was commuted to half a session - the player got to play a few rounds at the end of the session but had 40% on approximately half the boards in the session.

! This seems a strange statement given than you gave all the pips, the final contract, the lead and identified the event; and detailed records of the event are available online.

But presumably it would only be the third auction (the 5♦ bid) that wakes you up.

The method partner might be playing or the method you remember is that 2NT = minors.

Based loosely on a real hand, but I haven't got the actual hand to hand. You hold AQx KQJ AKxxx Jx. You open 2NT showing something like 20-21 or 20-22 and receive UI. The opponents are silent. 2NT-3♦-? For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3♦ was a transfer. What calls are logical alternatives? 2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-? For players in this competition, it would be usual that 3NT was NF, choice of game. What calls are logical alternatives? 2NT-3♦-3♥-3NT-4♥-5♦-? For players in this competition, it be usual for 5♦ to be undiscussed. What calls are logical alternatives?

As others have pointed out, North being correctly informed does not mean West correctly informed him. This is certainly not the assumption when we rule. But even in real life, North may be corrected informed: He might have read the E/W convention card. He might ask West, after West's pass, and West may now remember and give the correct alert/explanation.