RMB1

I don't understand - sorry if this is some (forum or real) politics I do not understand. The internet shows Chiang Mai as being in Thailand (not China) - is there some embargo on discussing bridge from Thailand?

Not quite the same, but I had a case where a defender (on lead, with trump Q) asked about 5H response to 4NT, "2 aces", defender "denying queen of trumps?", declarer "yes". Declarer failed to locate the trumps queen in the play and asked for a ruling but got no redress. They appealed and lost the appeal (and their deposit). The AC said that once declarer had given an incomplete answer, the opponent could ask for clarification whatever his holding. Effectively, once there has been an incomplete or inadequate explanation, there is always a demonstrable bridge reason to seak clarification.

I think the answer to the OP's question is yes - becauase there have been such appeals. I think it was a match played privately, a player mistakenly showed two suits he didn't have and (after hearing partner's explanation) doubled the opponents in an attempt to stop partner competing. The TD adjusted to a result without the double and with the offenders competing and going for more than the doubled contract making. But the non-offenders needed more - they appealed (to a referee) on the basis that the double had been a gross use of UI, deserving of a PP, and the offenders might have gome more off. The referee gave them both and this was enough to win the match. So they did not appeal just to get a PP applied, but that was an explicit part of their reason for appeal.

It requires East to have a non-heart loser and South to have a non-heart winner instead of ♥Q. (We don't know what trumps are?) It is 0% if West knows what cards are left - but this is pretty much the point. Why? What procedure has East breached - claims by defenders are permitted by Law 68.

But with screens were have to be satisfied that the UI is from partner. In this case it probably obvious that opener is thinking before bidding rather than his screenmate. But assuming a standard screen set-up (N+E/S+W), ... opener's screenmate is unpassed hand who might have asked lots of questions about 3♠ before deciding not to double or bid 4♠ (for example). It may not be clear that a slow return of the tray is a slow 3NT. [i got it wrong.] If the source of the slow return of the tray can not be identified as being the partner of the potential offender then Law 16B does not apply.

If that is your agreement about 4NT then 3NT should be more accurately described as "slam try both minors OR to play 4NT (for whatever reason)". I am not sure that having such an agreement will necessarily save you from the constraints of having forgotten that 3NT was artificial and the UI when it is alerted.

We understand that Andrew Robson (London, England) teaches his beginners that they do not need extras to reverse. (If they get too high, they get too high.)

Yes, its the law. The intention is that partner is not told he has got the agreement wrong while he is playing the hand. The defending side is already going to be "penalized" for the opponents not knowing the defending side's system during the auction

(Yes) Rules (laws and regulations) govern who may attend appeals and the assumption is that you may not attend without permission. The committee (and in particular, the chairman) is a power unto themselves and may ask others to attend and can permit others to attend. There is a certain amount of qualified immunity (not the right phrase - IANAL) concerning what is said at an appeal - having uninvolved observers may prejudice this.

The Appeals Booklet containing this write up is available: 2010 Appeals, APPEAL No: 10.045.

The only other "bridge" OBE I know of is Grattan Endicott (Secretary to the WBF Laws Commission)

In my experience, forcing a pair to play a standard card without embellishment is entirely counter-productive. You can not change a pair's understandings by putting a piece of paper in front of their opponents. The pair will continue to play with the understandings they had - and the piece of paper you put in front of the opponents will not tell the oppoents anything about the pairs actual agreements and understandings.

Sorry if my post appeared bullying. Just trying to make the point that psyching is not necessarily illegal. Merry Christmas

What have opponents done wrong that deserve "slapping" and have "action" taken? 4♠ looks a reasonable shot now.

Especially if she says its because we can't afford it. But I think even asking the internet for advice on understanding the woman (or other significant other) in your life is likely to get the OP into more trouble.

Compare the hand with the hand record. If it does not match, then I cancel the board and get them to play the correct board later. If it matches then I tell the player to get on with the hand. Meanwhile I check the hand records against the hand records of the earlier event where the player said the board came from. If the two sets match then I cancel all boards at both tables and start again. If the two sets do not match but one board is the same I seek guidance from a higher source.

But the Pro did not get a worse score by conceding all the tricks - the OP tells us the tricks he might have won would give him the same zero match points. Or are we going to prosecute the Pro's pair for deliberately playing in a cue bid?

On a heart return s normal line is to "cash" hearts then clubs then spades. After ♥A, ♥K, ♣Q, South takes 3 tricks -1. Perhaps I have missed the attempted analogy / irony in the second problem - I don't really understand the smilies. Does this mean I should rule two tricks to the defence in the OP - perhaps it does.

If the advantage gained is by barring partner, then the relevant law is Law 27B2 which points to Law 23 (a "could have known" law). The "particular clause" (Law 27D) only applies to Law 27B1(a/b), not when the correction of the insufficient bid silences offenders partner.

... could demonstrably be suggested ... I don't see why West thinking East has clubs suggests that East switches to diamonds.

I wonder if the normal result in the contract was still a bottom. As a TD I would check that the score was one that both sides agreed was the score at the table. The conceding side do not seem to have made any breach of procedure - it does not appear to be against the law to concede a trick you must win. The side that accepted the concession appear to have broken with the law that says they should not accept the concession of a trick that can not be lost. There is no penalty for breaches of that law, and I do not think a procedural penalty is appropriate. I would issue a warning in the form of reminding them that the law exists.

In the past the laws had harsh mechanical penalties but the offending side were given more chance to recover following their infraction - for instance penalty cards were not unauthorised but there was a 2, 3, ... trick penalty for the revoke. The approach to Law 27 was to heavily restrict what calls the offending side could make to keep the auction open but not deny them any chance to recover by making the insufficient bid unauthorised - with Law 27D as a back-stop if they recover too much. This does not sit so well with Law 27B1b.

OB 5G2(c)4(d)

Two comparisons are flat. The two comparisons involving the assigned score are the same. XIMP = 2 *( 0.5 * IMPs(480-980) + 0.5 * IMPs(480+50)) = IMPs(-500) + IMPs(530) = -11 + 11 = 0

The latter. We used to talk about truth, justice and the American Way. Truth was the international approach, if it is 50/50 you award the true 50/50 (and perhaps award a procedural penalty to ensure OS have not gained). Justice was the EBU approach, if it is 50/50 you award 60/40 to NOS as a "bakers' dozen" approach to ensuring the NOS were not damaged. The American way is Law 12C1e.