RMB1

Yes. Good point. I could claim that the commentary says "is difficult see how he can make anything other than nine tricks" and as the commentator is another EBU TD, I have some backing for my ruling. But I suspect that at least one of us did not give the matter enough thought. :)

In the EBU, the bidding box regulations say that a call is made if withdrawn from the box with apparent intent. If relevent in this case, the second time your opponent put 4♦ on the table it was not with intent to make a call, and this intent was apparent. So 4♦ was not a call made over 5♣ and there was no insufficient bid to accept.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7h643dq6ckj9432&w=sa54hkq5dkjt985cq&n=skq93ha972d74cat7&e=st862hjt8da32c865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np2np3cpp3dp3sppp]399|300|2NT announced as transfer to minors*[/hv] It looks as if E/W were entitled to the explanation that 2NT showed 1 minor and 3C was to play opposite clubs. It appears that West would still bid 3D and East would Pass, so an adjustment to EW +110 looks appropriate. A gentle reminder to NS to alert minor suit transfers and rebids (and to agree what 2NT is).

Which "we"? Did I miss a memo?

When we first played duplicated boards in Swiss Teams in the annual London one-day event, we shared physical boards between the four tables in two complete matches. The tables were arranged in squares, with the tables in a match positioned diagonally, and the eight boards rotated round the tables. This had some practical limitations: it needs an even number of tables in each row and column, and eight board rounds, and means overhearing the other table in a match is more likely.

I was assuming I knew the TD and he knew me, e.g. a county congress; not some club where I was an unknown visitor. I would not try to get a ruling in my favour on such a hand: it is too difficult to establish the mannerisms envolved, and I find that TDs choose to believe my opponents.

I think that North's actions (his statement and his double) were failures to comply with the instructions of the tournament director and not only should the decision to accept 1♦ not be allowed to be influenced by North's actions but there should be a procedural penalty.

Let me offer a third. The only interpretation of Law 28B I was previously aware of was that it only applied if North was not aware of the call out of rotation and attention had not been drawn to the call out of rotation. If North was aware of the call out of rotation he should draw attention to it, and if attention was drawn the other rectifications would be applied.

Indeed, it is possible that the position is sufficiently clear that there is no logical altnernative to the ♦ switch. As a player (who is recognised as a TD) I would talk to the TD after the round and ask "do you want me to call when these sort of players do this sort of thing?"

I do not think this is right. Once attention has been drawn and South has been given the option to accept, it can not be right for North to have the option to call and take away South's options: at the very least this seems to be "consulting" North, as prohibited by Law 10C2.

The European Bridge League introduced a regulation which required the TD to stop play of a board once the auction had started because of slow play and to award an adjusted score. This was for the pairs in Menton in 2003. The TDs were "reluctant" to apply the regulation. ASAIK, the EBL thought such a regulation was legal. I can see nothing in the laws that allows cancelling a board before it has started for slow play that would not also allow stopping a board once it has started.

I think it is inevitable that regulatory authorities will use Miltons to define permitted methods: minimum agreements for 1 bid, strong bids, etc. But if players are using different evaluation methods in deciding what to bid it will not achieve full disclosure if these players are instructed to describe their agreements solely in terms of Miltons. Regulatory authorities need to require disclosure in a way which is sufficiently accurate and sufficiently understandable to the opponents.

Indeed, I think this is the only reason.

This is a bit of a mess in the laws, because there is not requirement to wait for everyone to quit trick 1 before someone leads to trick 2. So declarer's lead to trick 2 is played - it may not be picked up and it may not be changed. In time, the other players will quit trick 1, and at some other time they will play to trick 2. It would be misleading for one player to play to trick 2 without having quit trick 1, but that seems to be the only requirement.

Last time this was discussed by EBU directors (2010) the firm agreement was that insufficient bidder should routinely be questioned away from the table: to determine the meaning of the insufficient bid and, incidently, as a chance to decide that Law 25A applies. I am not sure if bluejak thinks that this recommendation/agreement has changed. In a case like OP I would tell the table that offender is suggesting 2♦ was inadvertent, leaving it open for others at the table to say "but he stared at 2♦ for 10seconds, and only then did anyone say anything - at no stage, at the table, did he suggest 2♦ was inadvertent". Only once I dealt with such objections, would I rule under Law 25A, otherwise I would apply Law 27. In questioning the player away from the table, the TD must be careful not to suggest the insufficient bid was inadvertent; a knowledgeable player will know it is to his advantage to claim the bid was inadvertent once it is suggested to him. ("Of course I didn't mean to bid 2♦ - its insufficient!")

!

If there are different plausible meanings for partner's bids then assuming any such meaning is a logical alternative. If 4♠ (say) is the proper rebid for one of the plausible meaning of 4♦ then that makes 4♠ a loigcal alternative. Logical altnernative bids must be suggested over Pass (which has the best chance to get out of this mess).

Seem to have hit a nerve :(

Is it the TD's role to embarrass a player so that they expose their revoke? Or does this interfere with a player's enjoyment of the game?

Err, not necessarily. In many clubs in England, the TD gets no perks from being a playing TD. They do it because some one has to do it (just like the officers of the club). Some enjoy the power, some enjoy the extra technical challenges, and some enjoy deploying a skill they have to enable others to have a proper game. Alot of the time this is all taken for granted.

Sorry, I thought jallerton's question is what would I ask the offender away from the table.

In which case, would a procedural penalty be approriate?

A spade lead is more likely given the explanation of Lebensohl, as neither player has shown a spade stop.

If there is, from the previous responses, we don't follow it :) If there is already a suggestion that 2♦ is unintended then I would ask something specific like gordontd, otherwise I try to ask something very neutral "what happened?". The answer is normally sufficient to tell me whether the bid was unintended and what was the meaning of the insufficient bid.

I am interested in suggestions for agreements/methods on the auction 1m-(P)-1M-(X)-? This is in the context of weak NT, 4cM openings. In particular, if suit bids are natural, what is the best meaning for Pass, XX, 1NT, 2NT?