RMB1

Law 70: "as equitably as possible to both sides". In the laws, equity relates to the outcome of the hand if the current issue had not arisen, so in the case of a claim, the outcome if the hand had been played out.

If your question is: "in the UK are 1♠-P-3♠ and 1♠-P-4♠ preemptive?" then the answer is for a lot of average club players or better: "Yes". Before those in the North-West say that they have never heard such rubbish - I suppose I should confined my answer to the South of England.

Noone has mentioned one of the G-words: "gerber". You have to bid 4NT before bidding a suit slam - similarly you have to bid 4♣ before bidding 6NT.

Could you possibly clarify this sentence, please, Robin? If Double ends the auction, it scores +300, while Pass scores +100. Did you mean "choosing Double over Pass would damage the non-offending side". Sorry, nothing deep here: I think there is a "not" missing. (... would NOT damage the non-offending side)

They only played 12 rounds, so perhaps the boards 1-26 were made up at the table. It looks like board 27 was just the first board to hand not being in play. ACBL awards 65% and 55% for a sub-field of two results. The other sub-field of 9 results have been neuberg-ed with a factor of 12/9=4/3. If it can be determined which sub-field the first result belongs to, and if it is within the time limit for correcting manifest scoring errors, then the appropriate sub-field should be rescored with 3 or 10 results. If NS -140 is a spade partial for EW this looks to be a good score for EW in larger sub-field.

The (EBU) regulations talk about "potentially unexpected meaning". What is "potentially unexpected" for some opponents is just not unexpected for other opponents. So I agree that it is appropriate to vary your alerting depending on the opponents.

This discussion of anomimity is a bit pointless. As soon as the first thread appeared I only had to put the OP and partner's names into google to find their most recent result. As far as I could tell from the ranking list only two members of the L&E were playing in the event, so that told me 2/3 of the AC. Look through the travellers for an adjusted (weighted) score, and I know the board and the other team (the appellants). Similarly, when bluejak posted about a disciplinary incident, it did not take long to find his latest result at an event where one pair had results for three rounds and AVE- for the remainder. The pair matched the ages profile (one young, one older) so you could name the one who had caused the original problem and the one who had decided to leave.

I have discussed this ruling/appeal with some of those involved and I have been invited (solicited?) to give my opinions here. The other thread was directed primarily at the wording of the AC decision. I think the TD also failed to give the reasons for his ruling correctly. The TD thought that 4C and 4S were making and so that bidding by responder was only going to increase their score from +100 to a combination of +130 and +620. So the reason for the TD ruling of "results stands" was not "no logical alternative to the actions taken", nor "actions taken were not suggested by UI", but that there might be logical alternative calls and there might be calls that were suggested but there was no damage. (The TD could have issued a PP if he nevertheless thought responder's action had breached Law 73.) I think there are logical alternative bids to both of responder's Passes. I think they would lead to contracts of 4C, 4S and 5C. I think the AC were generous to the offending side in there weighting of 4S= v 4S-1 and 4C= v 5C-1. I think that passing out this auction is not a logical alternative. But some good players think there are no logical alternatives to the first Pass, and think that Double is the only logical alternatives to the second Pass. If Double is going to end the auction, then it is likely that it is suggested over Pass and choosing Pass over Double would damage the non-offending side. If this view is the concensus (from a poll?) then the ruling should be different. I think that if Double is a logical alternative then Pass is not. If Double is the only logical alternative then that action should have been chosen and the TD, the AC, and the rest of the world would have been having a different discussion.

There are lots of players who bid their better minor at the three level in response to an unusual 2NT unless they have substantial values. If you ask them why they didn't bid 5♣ they just look at you blankly. Perhaps this shows they don't really trust partner to have what he has shown, or perhaps they are uncomfortable bidding "on their own" when partner has only shown the suits artificially, not bid them. For such players, 3♣ is not a red fielded misbid. I guess I mean: 3♣ is not red fielding of the 2NT misbid.

Do you object to a player calling the TD because UI has been passed by the opponents, when the player does not think he has been damaged but he wants the opponent's action noted? Should the player say "I do not think I have been damaged on this hand"? Is the player saying that they do not think they have been damaged different from waiving rectification?

What was the result in 3NT? What result do EW hope for if they had been differently informed?

I think declarer has called for the Ace, that was his intention and there is the bit in Law 46 "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)" which means his intention wins. No, for the same reason (if declarer's intent can be established). "Ace" would be binding: that was his intention when he said it. He can not change his mind even though he did not know what cards were in dummy, or because dummy has been put down wrong (Law 47F1).

I conduct another poll where North is given the correct desciption of EW understandings: card says 18-19 BAL but he has forgotten before, 2♥ is a transfer to spades, but if he thinks 2♦ is weak then 2♥ is NF.

Something else = scrambling = both minors

Because although strength is correlated with HCP, there are fluctuations. The average hand has one nine, does this mean that all above average hands have at least one nine.

It does not follow that a better than average hand has 10 or more HCP

I think that NS will not misunderstand North's double if 2♣ is explained differently, so NS are entitled to adjustment for misinformation on the basis that the auction starts 1NT-2♣-X-P-P. But I am not sure that Pass is a logical alternative for West at his second call on either auction 1NT-2♣-X-P-P/2♦-? In an environment of players with poor partnership understanding, where they don't know what 1NT-2C is, nevermind what 1NT-2C-X-P is, I don't think you will find any of West's peers who will not bid again with 5-5 in majors. I would need to find a player who would pass before adjusting to 2CX going down.

For bad behaviour on Bridge Base Online contact abuse@bridgebase.com

The TD seems to have not ruled that Double was serious error or wild action; rather that in the judgement of the TD East would always double whatever meaning is given for 4NT, so there is no damage from misinformation. I disagree with the TD's judgement, for the reasons given in #6.

I think there are plenty of examples where we (EBU) have ruled that cashing the wrong honour from holdings like AK9xx/Q10xx or AK98x/Qxxx is careless and therefore normal. Claimer has to mutter something about "being careful" or "doing the right thing" in trumps to make the tricks when they are 4-0.

Not by me. The King is a normal (careless) play.

What matter is the agreement/understanding. What South believes is some evidence of what their agreement is. What North explains is also evidence of their agreement. But Law 21B1b instructs us to favour South if he believes he got the system right.

This is Law 27C: East should be given the option of accepting 2NT, otherwise the TD applies Law 27B to the double. If the double shows the same as or more precise than 2NT then the double stands and South is not silenced (Law 27B1b). It is possible that double is usually made on a balanced hand but it does not seem likely that it only shows hands that would rebid 2NT (over a 2♦ response, or a 2M overcall). But local interpretation of Law 27B1b may be different for the OP. If the double is not permitted by Law 27B1b then the double is cancelled, North must make a sufficient bid or Pass and South must pass throughout (Law 27B3).

If the TD finds that the partnership understanding was the South thought 2C showed H+another or clubs and North thought 2C showed H+another then there should be an adjustment on the basis of misinformation. Formally, East/West are entitled to know that N/S agree that 2C showed H+another but N/S disagree as to whether 2C can also show (just) clubs. A practical adjustment based on such an explanation is to allow West to bid hearts naturally some of the time, and so for EW to play in 3H some of the time.

At least one player believes the EBU regulations require him to ask about a skip bid that was alerted or potentially unusual (e.g. above 3NT), as part of using up the ten seconds. To do otherwise would "show indifference when pausing" (EBU Orange Book 7B6). Although perhaps not strictly relevant, it matches my perception that players attempting to comply with the EBU regulation ask questions during the ten second pause not before the ten second pause.