RMB1

Can this really be the right forum for a topic where 1S = hearts?

For what its worth, the EBU regulations are different: passing the tray accepts the insufficient bid.

(2) Is specifically where opponents could expect to become informed: alerts, answers to questions, reading system cards. (1) Includes other failures to disclose: for example, where the system card is incomplete or incorrect (even if the opponents have not looked at it).

Good question. I hope this is not just a "know it when I see it" distinction. I think "concealed" requires a positive desire to conceal, not just a failure to disclose. As evidence of a desire to conceal might be: intent (if 2♥ was explained as "take-out of spades"); or motive (for instance, if the full understanding is not a permitted agreement).

That's called partnership understanding. :) If they both forget they are playing a convention then they are not playing that convention: they clearly have a different understanding. They may be guilty of not properly disclosing their understanding - although I do not think (as an opponent) you can assume any meaning for a transfer to opener's suit from "system on". I do not think they are guilty of having a concealed partnership understanding.

How can North misbid when they have no agreement about 2♥? I know the card says "System On" but it appears their agreement is "System On, no agreement about a transfer to opponent's suit" - this is what "System On" means for many partnerships. South cannot field a misbid if there is no agreement. He is entitled to use general bridge knowledge, partnership experience, and his hand to guess what North might have. As to when to call the TD: If the defenders need to know the partnership understanding of 2♥ and 3♥, they should ask. If the explanations given by NS suggest there haas been an infraction EW should call the TD at that point. Otherwise EW should wait until the end of the hand, when they know what NS's hands are, before calling the TD.

I assume this is a two-winner movement? (Mitchell or similar with no arrow switch)

It must be possible for a card to be lead during the auction period (without subsequent cards being played) because Law 24 tells us how to rule when it happens.

I don't think there should be any restriction on players who make mistakes like West from entering tournaments: OP says that the pair were doing well (had beaten some good pairs). I think it is a mistake to psyche opposite a partner who is known to mistakes like this - there is too much danger that partner's odd mistake will look like fielding.

It is "rule of" 18 so it is permitted to agree to open this hand with 1♥ in EBU; and it is certainly not HUM, so it is permitted to agree to open this hand in EBL and WBF events. Even if it is a point or two shy of the announced partnership agreement for 1♥, it is "a gross misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length"?

Why is 1♥ a psyche?

Obviously there has been an infraction, and there is an applicable law, but should the opponents be allowed to wait for the offenders to commit further infractions (in ignorance of the law) before calling the TD?

Law 40A3 can be read to say that you can not make a call if there is a concealed partnership understanding about the call. So it is possible to argue that if the ruling is that a call was based on a CPU then the adjustment should be as if the call had not been made. This is the sort of argument that leads to Law 12C1(d).

Yes I saw several videos of such experiments while touring London psychology departments last autumn.

I understand the problem, which occurs because Pair 1 were due to sitout these boards. If there was no sitout and 1 was due to play 7-9 against pair 3 (say) then on the travellers for 7-9 you would edit to have 1v4 with the score they got, and have 2v3 with AVE+/AVE+; on the travellers for 1-3 you score 1v4 as AVE-/AVE-. When there is a sitout you are going to have more work. On the travellers for 7-9 you should edit to have 1v4 with the score they got, and edit to have pair 2 sitting out those boards; on the travellers for 1-3 you score 1v4 as AVE-/AVE-. This results in Pair 1 having more results than they were scheduled to have (including the three AVE-s from 1-3) but this seems the right/fair way to calculate their percentage. It also results in Pair 2 having fewer results than they were scheduled and being denied three AVE+ scores they were entitled to. This is unfair, so you should recalculate the final score for Pair 2 (by hand) by adding 3xAVE+ to their match points, and adding 3xTOP to their possible maximum score. [if you are very lucky, Pair 2 will have score more than 60% overall, and the final recalculation must not be done.] P.S. A truely versatile program would allow you to add a line to the travellers for 7-9 showing Pair 2 v nobody, with Pair 2 scoring AVE+ and "nobody" scoring "not played". Perhaps scorebridge is such a program!

If West knew that 2NT was undiscussed and that it could be natural or it could be both minors, does he have any useful UI? Is it possible that if the partnership understanding is that 2NT is natural or minors, then 3m in response is effectively pass or correct: pass with with both minors, rebid NT with NT hand?

Can I nominate this topic as "most amusing combination of title and poster" for the annual awards?

What scoring program are you using? In both PairsScorer and ScoreBridge it is possible to edit the travellers so they corrrespond to how the board was actually played. In PairsScorer this is done by clicking on the pair numbers on the left of the "Enter Scores" panel and entering the new pair number in the pop-up box.

No. But I expect a pair that do not understand the consequences of the incorrect use of the stop card to call the TD and I would like a pair whose opponents appear not to understand those consequences to call the TD. If East has no UI, I except that he will bid 3NT at the first opportunity. Yes, if 2♣ artificial opening is alertable in Germany. If East has UI then I fear we will either has to impose fantastic auctions to some silly contracts, or hide behind Law 12C1(d).

There were a number of infractions arising from the use of the stop card for 2♣ and the subsequent conversation. In particular, the remark by East that she had not seen the opening bid. If NS are experienced and EW are not experienced, I will first ask the table why I was not called earlier. If I had been called earlier, there would have been an opportunity to explain to West what their responsibilities were in avoiding using the information from the remark. If it should have been obvious to NS that EW were a rather weak pair, and would not understand the lawful consequences of the remark, then I would like to rule that there was no infraction; but I guess I can't. East does not have UI and whatever we make West do, East would probably bid 3NT (authorised panic?) and that would end the auction. So no damage?

In a club setting, I would get everyone to skip and then tell NS who have started an auction to do their best to play the hand normally, and say if anyone at the table thought there was a problem that I would look at it when I was able. [Alternatively, with 11.5 tables play a hesitation mitchell with no NS1, avoiding the board sharing.]

What Law or Regulation have the brown-sticker side broken? I have searched the VBA regulations and I can find no mention of brown sticker. As far as I can see, there is no requirement to attach brown stickers to the system card, and no special requirements on pre-alerting. [but I wasn't looking at all the relevant documents, see below.]

How often do honest players try to play by the rules even when they know opponents will not have the laws enforced?

The various squeezes would be easier if dummy had 13 cards: at the moment every squeeze I look at ends up squeezing dummy first. :)