RMB1

?

It look primarily to be a disclosure issue: 1♠ = 5+, our agreement may be 11-16, but we understand it could be weaker 2♣ = forcing, artificial, forcing to game except opposite a "sub minimum" opening 2♦ = subminimum, 0-10 I guess 2♠ = non forcing, to play In various places 1♠ may not be permitted unless it is 8+HCP, and artificial non-GF responses such as 2♣ are not always permitted.

There was a case at Brighton (2/3 years ago) where dealer intended to bid 1♠ but put 1NT on the table. Partner announced the range, which told opener that he had mis-pulled but he did attempt to correct to 1♠. So the auction continued, uncontested, with a 2♦ response. The question was, was the 1NT bid [un]authorized to opener? Must he treat 2♦ as natural, not a transfer? I hope I have got this right: the consensus was that 1NT was unauthorized to the player that bid it and bidding 2♥ was using UI.

The pairs might object if they knew that Law 12C2 gives them (at least) 60% if they are not at fault.

online players who get an "UNDO" and then start thinking about which call they were trying to make.

To be played with Irish/Polish jump-cue (1♠)-3♠ showing a spade stop and asking if partner has a running suit.

In England, we teach that dummy is responsible for correctly displaying dummy - failure to correctly display dummy is a failure to comply with Law 41C. There is no penalty in that law so we apply Law 12A1 and adjust the score if defenders were damaged by not being able to see all of dummy's cards. We don't care about deliberate concealment, so we don't have to worry about:

The aim of the regulation is that you may not change the meaning of <sufficient bid>-replacing-<insufficient bid> from the meaning of <sufficient bid> (without the insufficient bid), at least you may not change to a meaning that would not silence partner under Law 27B1b. [sorry, this stuff is impossible to write!] You can agree that 2H-P-2N-3S-3D/P = DOPI [= step 2 = bad suit and good points], if your agreement is that 2H-P-2N-3S-P = DOPI. But if your agreement is 2H-P-2N-3S-P = min [= bad points], then you can not agree a meaning for 2H-P-2N-3S-3D/P which is (or is more precise than) "bad suit and bad points". But you may "agree" to play 2H-P-2N-3S-3D/P = "very bad, not prepared to play 4H" because now Pass will silence partner, and we are now in the realms of permitting bridge logic.

Oh we have boxes, but more respect for language than to call them "bid-boxes".

But according to the diagram South has 5-5 in the minors - not North.

Something similar used to appear in the first bulletin of each international championship.

Did you point it out to WBFLC in response to Grattan's "open invitation"? (FWIW, I did.)

Law 73C?

It wasn't a signalling method - partner had expressed the opinion that we might play suit preference when obvious when following suit, but otherwise he did not expect to signal on declarer's lead. It wasn't even an agreement as to how to play when following suit - but it could have become an implicit one.

I don't really understand, what is the basis for ruling on fielded misbids if it is not evidence of a CPU?

Presumably hosting your own missiles targeted at other countries does not mean you are an evil dictator.

Oh so we did, and Colin will never forgive me. I think that in England we would adjust for other instances against the same opponents - because those opponents can be assumed to have asked for a ruling on all boards. The TD does not investigate boards in earlier rounds. There is nothing to stop non-offenders from telling others (in the bar at the end of the session) but the pthers may not be in time for a ruling.

There is very little case law on illegal conventions and I am not aware of pair having an artificial adjustment for previous boards where the illegal convention was used, in England. There was a case in Europe where a pair played a brown sticker 1NT overcall of 1C where this was not permitted. When it came to light the penalty was to (artificially) adjust on all boards where they had used* this overcall in all previous matches of the championship and that the pair could not play the next match. This may be what campboy is alluding to - or his might just be an equitable reading of the law/regulation. * This was complicated by the fact the overcall was permitted over an artificial 1C, and so those boards were not cancelled (I think?), with the further complication about whether clubs or balanced (2+ clubs was artificial), in particular whether 3+ clubs or 4=4=3=2 was artificial. [This European ruling is all from memory - posted away from my "archives" at home.]

sasioc is not a he.

But it is legal now. I guess they were aware of that when they wrote the current regulation.

Suppose the L&E want to make a different regulation for a Pass before any player has bid, what should it say? "Any meaning is permitted for an initial Pass, unless it [both] shows values and may be stronger than 12 HCP / rule of 19" ?

The paranoia about Drury disappeared from the regulations and practice many years ago. There is no special treatment of Drury in the rules on permitted conventions or psyches.

And the downside of that is what? I have often said "Partner may be right as to our agreements, but I don't think we can provide evidence, and its not what I've got."

+1 That was my first thought when I started reading the auction.

To answer the question in the other thread before this thread was forked ... It appears that, at the point that he bid 2♦, both members of the partnership understood 2♦ as natural. I think the 2♦ bidder should explain that partnership understanding (which corresponds to what is in his hand).