RMB1

I think the practical effect of such a regulation is to limit proper disclosure. Instead of accurately describing an agreement that may include some 3HCP and some 10HCP, the agreement will be described as 5-9 and instances outside that range will be dismissed as deviations, when they are in fact systemic.

West's play is out of rotation but there is no penalty (Law 57C - in the English edition of the laws, you must remember to turn the page after reading Laws 57A/B!). Dummy (the hand) has not played the singleton, but dummy (the player) has "illegally suggested that it be played". East may play any legal card to this trick and the cards apparently played by dummy and West are the cards played to the trick.

I think the wording of the alerting regulations predates the 2007 Laws. The previous laws defined "conventional" with much the same text that now defines "artificial". I think that definition is the one that is relevant to the WBF regulation.

Anything that records information in the order of suits could be seen as illegally communicating with declarer. I guess the only solution is to order the suits randomly. But I do the same: avoid putting a long suit as "trumps", put the suit of the opening lead (if an unbid suit) as "trumps". I think this is harmless.

Does this mean that on the auction: 3NT - Pass - late alert of 3NT second hand can not ask the meaning of 3NT before deciding whether to change his Pass?

You need to google "Burns law" and you will find http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/burn_law.htm Presumably, by extension, a Burn's fit is one that doesn't meet Burn's law.

Ditto: I rarely play at all. You can still find your own grade by logging in to the member area. If anyone has looked, I am not from WOR (Worcestershire).

I think details of the information from the responses allows the opponents to make "relevant inferences" from the choice of call and so is information to which opponents are entitled according to Law 20F: So questions about responses should be answered.

SA, SK, CQ, DA (H), HA, HK, CA (H), H ruff ... Is a good line whether or not SQ drops, so I think you have to give some credence to "a second trump to the king". If that was declaer's plan then I think (some of) 12 tricks is appropriate.

Round these parts I would say "5 card stayman" but the poll asks what I should say, so I replied "Asks for 4/5 card majors"

OK. Let me rephrase my previous response: There are 10 rounds of 2 or 3 boards. Each pair plays 5 (=2+3) boards against 4 of the other pairs, and in the 24 board movement plays 4(=2+2) boards against the fifth pair; and in the 26 board movement plays 6(=3+3) boards against the fifth pair.

The 24 and 26 board movements play 4 rounds of 5 boards and then in the last round all tables play 4 or 6 boards.

So a card played to an apparent trick (where the previous apparently played cards had not in fact been played) is still a card played, and it is the first card played to the trick, therefore it is a lead.

What is inferior about ruffing in dummy, leaving only trumps in hand, for someone who thinks all the defenders' trumps have gone?

Without the revoke, declarer is very likely to draw two rounds of spades when in hand with ♦Q. This leads to 9 tricks (losing 2 spades, and two side aces). This would be my adjustment. If West has ♣A and not ♣Q then he could well be in a position that a low club will concede 10 tricks (when North has not got a "guess"). In this case the chance of a small club switch is sufficiently low that I award 100% of 9 tricks. If West has ♣Q and not ♣A then he will switch to a low club, declarer is likely to get it right (see previous case) but I would award a weighted score: say 70% of 9 tricks, 30% of 8 tricks.

I thought for one scary moment this would be an entry switching squeeze on a trump return; but I guess VixTD's club is not frequented by lamford. :) Luckily I do not have to decide whether it is obvious which black suit will deliver the last trick if West returns a ♥10. Instead I rule that a diamond return ruffed by ♥J is a normal play. Two tricks to declarer (Law 70C).

When the real opening leader was to play to trick one, 15 cards had been exposed during the auction period. But real opening leader's play to trick one was a valid opening lead. The play to trick two was legal and as both sides have played to trick two, the cards apparently played to trick one will remain as cards played to trick one. When the wrong dummy is discovered, the correct dummy should be exposed and defender's exposed card are penalty cards (and all thirteen were from trick one). The revoke law may apply to earlier tricks. The law on penalty cards may apply to the last play by defenders, otherwise play continues.

I might suggest Law 92A. IMHO the ruling that the captains agree on is "a ruling given by the Director", with the captains acting jointly as the director.

If the question is "How to play a single session with 24 tables?" then a Web Mitchell is certainly an answer.

If "Pairs Scorer" means Jeff Smith's PairsScorer then Create event Event Details: Section = Blue, etc. Movement: tables = 12, choose a 12 table movement Exit Create event Event Details: Section = Green Movement: as above Exit Select last two event (the Blue and Green sections): combine sections Select last event (the combined event): retreive event

It is still there: section 162.7 Excluded from this list is 162.4(a) "Captains agree upon an outcome." I think this is anomalous and said so when last asked to review the White Book. But I understand it was discussed and woding was confirmed by the EBU. [corrected typo]

I was consulted when this came up recently. The only real answer is "there should be regulations" in the conditions of contest for the competition. If there are three comparable results and one other we should discard the fourth result (but you might have to apply Law 86D). It has previously been recommended to discard the other result from the same sub-section (this is in the regulation in one team of eight league I used to play in). Alternatively you should estimate the fourth result from the other 3 and then add and IMP. If the scores are A, B in one direction and C in the other, then this amounts to IMP((A+B-2C)/d) -- for some "pre-determined" value of d. d=1 corresponds to replacing the missing score by C, the other score in the same direction d=2 corresponds to replacing the missing score by (A+B)/2, the average of the scores in the other direction d=1.5 corresponds to replacing the missing score by (A+B+C)/3, the average of all the scores. What was done in OP was d=2. Having written this, d=1.5 appears to be the "right" solution: IMP( (2/3)A + (2/3)B - (4/3)C )

In this case, declarer simply did not bother looking to see what card dummy had put in the played position. Presumably dummy normally follows declarer's designations acurately and declarer had no reason to think there would be a problem. When RHO played a heart, declarer had time to think "if he's got no diamonds then this isn't making" :). There was certainly time for thought between dummy's card being played and declarer taking any action that revealed the unintended designation. When I started directing, we still had spoken bidding and the common "interpretation" of "without pause for thought" was "in the same breath", certainly the "pause for thought" started when the call or designation was spoken. It is only players' inability to pay attention to the use of bidding box cards, and the desire to avoid "non-bridge" results, that has lead to the "obvious" "interpretation" that "pause for thought" starts some time later than when the inadvertent action is made.

Declarer intends to call for a diamond from dummy but everyone hears "heart" (the TD will find that declarer mis-spoke, and did say "heart" despite declarer's intention). Dummy places a heart in the played position. RHO plays a heart. First scenario Declarer plays a diamond, dummy says "having none" and it is established that declarer thought a diamond had been played by dummy; and even if he said "heart" it was not his intention. We read Law 45C4(b): and decide that in the case of declarer calling a card from dummy, "until his partner has played" must mean "until declarer has played from his own hand"? So in this scenario it is too late to change the unintended designation. If the diamond played by declarer is a revoke, it is corrected, and play continues. Second scenario Declarer does not play, instead he asks RHO "having none" and it is established that declarer thought a diamond had been played by dummy. As soon as declarer realised that dummy had heard "heart", declarer corrected the designation to "diamond". Is declarer in time to change the unintended designation? Was there a "pause for thought"? When does the "pause for thought" start? In Law 25A, there is an official "interpretation" that "pause for thought" starts when the players becomes aware of his unintended/inadvertent action - does that apply here?

I don't think 4♥ is suggested over other (positive) action, so if Pass is not a logical alternative then there is no infraction, and no adjustment. But I think Pass is a logical alternative.