RMB1

I would suggest replying "Yes", calling the TD, telling him the exchange with the opponents, and mentioning zero tolerance.

It appears that the (intended) meaning of 1♥ was a transfer to spades, in which case the substitution of 2♥ might be allowed under Law 27B1b, and partner of the IBer is not silenced. If partner understands the law (because the TD has explained properly) then he knows that 2♥ should still have their systemic meaning, and should anounce/alert/explain as a transfer. If the director rules that partner of IBer is not silenced then partner can bid how he likes (the insufficient bid is not unauthorised information). But the result may be adjusted under Law 27D - effectively if the offending side reach a contract their system would not not them reach without the insufficient bid.

"Transfer to either minor" means bid something (not clear what) and we will play in a minor. This might be because responder has one minor and responder will pass/correct to that minor. OR This might be because responder has both minors and opener will choose which minor. [What campboy said]

Apparently I ruled against phil_20686's team (and in favour of Hinden): without my ruling the match would have been tied. Yesterday, ARF wanted a pen and I had a choice of a boring hotel pen and one of bluejak's pens. Out of a sense of mischief, I gave ARF the bluejak pen, which was met with the expected derisive reaction. To my further amusement, bluejak entered the room just in time to witness the reaction.

You might think that a slow "3NT = 5 spades" suggests that responder knows 3NT shows 5 spades, but he doesn't have 5 spades. So passing is suggested by the UI over bidding 4S.

And in a thread where players use language to mean something different from the language defined in regulations, it is odd to start correcting english usage.

OK. My previous post was not directed at annoucements but st "free" language used in explanations. We should expect players to get annoucement correct according to the regulations, and the formal language of announcements may influence the language players use in explanations; but it will take more than definitions in any regulations to change the way players use language.

Partner should ask to see your hand. Handling partner's cards is an offence: Law 90B5.

Use of the word "transfer", like most language acquision, will be through hearing others use the term and using it oneself and seeing if it understood. Very little acquision is through looking up a word in a dictionary (or even bridge regulations) and following the definition given there. To complain that a word is being misused in conversation between players is as futile as complaining about annoying new/changed usages in everyday speach.

If 4♠ is to play, then a slow 4♠ is unceertain about playing in 4♠, so suggest bidding on. One that had misbid earlier.

That's partner's problem. You should do your best to alert (as the regulations require) and to explain your understandings, if that generates UI that is not illegal.

The status of the Orange Book Glossary was much discussed before it ended up at the back. I think gnasher has it right: the definitionx are only necessarily internal to the Orange Book. There are definitions in Section 4 Convention Cards which are meanings for descriptions appearing on convention cards, and presumably also constitute adequate disclosure in response to questons. Transfer/Puppet are not defined there and so I don't think a player is expected to use/understand these words as they are defined in the glossary. In particular "puppet" may not be adequate disclosure at all; and the description "transfer to a minor" is not necessarily meaningless, even though it has no meaning according to the glossary definition.

Orange Book glossary: "marionette" does not occur in the Orange Book (and is unheard of except for those who read Bridge World definitions).

But only because we have a regulation. If there is a different regulation then it might tell us to ignore subsequent play on the board.

The laws do not specify a penalty/rectification for the use of an illegal convention. It is up to regulating authorities to regulate understandings and to provide penalties for use of understanding that do not meet the regulations. It appears legal for regulators to say that (for instance) no result is possible following the use of an illegal convention and rule 40/60 under Law 12C2a.

In England, opening two of a suit as a weak three-suiter (including 5-4-3-1 but not 4-4-3-2) with three cards in the suit bid is permitted at level 2: the lowest level above simple systems. (EBU Orange Book 11G3©)

Despite what you may see, the only transfers that are announced are 2♦/2♥ after an opening 1NT followed by a Pass. Not after a 1NT rebid or overcall, not after a 2NT opening, not after 1NT followed by a double or overcall. The only other announcements are opening bids of 1NT through 2♠ and Stayman 2♣ after an opening 1NT (followed by a Pass).

It is clearer on the auction (1H)-2H*-(X), where you want to stop in 2S. So Pass = prefer clubs to spades, prefer spades to diamonds; Redouble = prefer diamonds to spades, prefer spades to clubs.

I thought all of the White Book had the force of a regulation. If this is an "interpretation", then the justification is to apply Law 12C1d in the case of use of illegal methods. Since most of the regulation of permitted methods applies to initial actions (or at least on the first round of auction), it is not unreasonable to deem the outcomes of the hand without the illegal method to be "numerous or not obvious".

Not relevant to EW's infraction, but: Is North's hand a permitted opening? Was South's double for takeout? If not was it alerted?

In the EBU, where a bid is made if it is clear of the box, you are committed: the bid is made. In the ACBL, where a bid is made if it is released on the table, the bid is not made and you are in time to change. Partner has UI if he can work out what call you were about to make, but that would not affect this auction.

Definitely. I would be entirely satisfied with a player who called me at the end of the hand and explained that he knew he had UI and had tried to avoid using it (Law 73) - but could not get his mind round what were logical alternatives and what was suggested (Law 16).

At the weekend, I erased the score for board 14 when I had been asked to erase board 40 (not listening nor thinking clearly) - "with hilarious consequences". I replaced the score for board 14 with "not played", so I could get the bridgemate back to round 6; but when I came to assign for round 7, the scoring program was complaining that round 2 hadn't finished yet.

Yes. I think that if you have an explanation of 2N-P-3NT(nat)-X then only that explanation should be used when determining LAs. But if all you have is the explanation given, then you should determine LAs on the basis that the auction was 2NT-P-3NT(nat)-X where X is explained as "no explanation on this sequence, but if 3NT showed 4 ♠ then double is ....".

(1) The explanation of double is authorised as an explanation of double in the auction where 3NT is artificial. (2) I don't think there is a requirement to ask. If you want to know (in order to better determine your logical alternatives) I think you should call the TD, explain the problem away from the table, and follow his direction. (This should deal with "what if they refuse to answer"). (3) I suspect Pass and 5♦ are LA, and perhaps 4♦: I would need to poll. I am not at all sure if any LA is suggested over others.