RMB1

+1. I wondered that too. I would have justed clicked "+" to up-vote if I could.

Oh yes! :)

I doubt it. Might I suggest a 6 card suit and strength that is worth Acol 2/1 but not worth 2/1 GF.

Yes. It would be possible to rule that ruffing is not a normal play. Some think that Law 70D3 should be used in this way. In which case the concession (of two tricks) is cancelled and the defence get one trick. Perhaps because of its history/motivation, I think Law 70D3 should be used to widen the scope of normal plays for the claiming/conceding side but should not be used to narrow the scopre of normal plays for the other side. But there is nothing explicit in the law to support this.

misclick :)

It would be good to know what happened next. Was abandonning your hand recognised as a concession? [Law 68B1] Did declarer accept the concession? [Law 69] Did partner immediately object to the concession? [Law 68B2] Did you attempt to withdraw your concession? [Law 71] There was a concession. Unless partner immediately objected play ceases. Declarer will accept the concession. If the defenders attempt to withdraw the concession, the TD will cancel the concession "if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards". [Law 71 2.] The play of ♣8 occured after the concession but the TD "may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim". [Law 70D3] This may mean that ♣8 is a normal play, but I think that ruffing is nevertheless also a normal play for declarer. In which case, there is a normal play by which the conceded tricks could be lost. The concession stands: two tricks to declarer.

There is some informed discussion at http://www.ebu.co.uk/englishbridge/2011/August/Debate.pdf But note that the arguments for SJS are firmly based on Acol.

Yes Yes, if there are no logical alternatives to playing to get a ruff.

Not necessarily, E-W might have read the correct agreement from the convention card.

To adjust under Law 73F, we need "that an innocent player" "has drawn a false inference" "from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent" "who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, " "and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit," I do not think the last part is satisfied. I do think that West could know that the remark would be taken to show fast heart tricks rather than slow heart tricks, and that inference would work against the defence.

Most probably play it as "no agreement" - to the extent that they wouldn't risk bidding it. "Specific aces" is what I regard as standard in England, based on 1970s books on Acol. I am sure some play it as Blackwood, and some as "both minors", and some as a good 5m bid.

I note that this offence is listed in Law 90B5 under "Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty"

I would rule under Law 73 and adjust because declarer was deceived by defender's action. There is some problem describing defender's action as "a voilation of the Proprieties described in this law" but I think the law is intended to apply.

No. Law 24 says ♠K becomes a penalty card, Law 50B says it is major, Law 50D1a says "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping."

As an outsider to ACBL alerting, I might suggest that if 1D is only short when then hand is balanced then it is not a canapé system. If the rebids show either a balanced hand or an unbalanced hand with diamonds as the longest suit, there is no rebid that shows a suit longer than diamonds (even if the there may be a suit longer than diamonds), there is no canapé rebid and it is not a canapé system. But I presume that in a strong club system, 1♦ would always be the opening bid on 1=3=4=5 or 3=1=4=5. I suppose you can avoid rebidding 2♣ on these hands (raise to 2M or rebid 1NT) but perhaps 1♦ would always be a potential canapé opening.

Replace 13 by 9 (or 12 by 8) and then the web mitchell odd movement will do 9 rounds at 11-17 tables the web mitchell even movement will do 9 rounds at 10-18 tables the web mitchell skip movement will do 8 rounds at 10-16? tables Replacing 12 by 6 then the web mitchell skip movement will do 6 rounds at 8-12 tables Jeff Smith's program has the 13x2, 12x2, 9x3, 8x3 movements. But it will do 9x2 and 8x2. It doesn't have 6/7 round web movements.

Are these links useful? http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/articles/default.htm http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/16T13Rwebmovement.pdf http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/19T13Rwebmovement.pdf The web mitchell movements are included in Jeff Smith's PairsScorer program.

The generic solution for we would try these days for 9 rounds "pairs play all the boards in play" would be web mitchells for numbers greater than 9 tables. This would need at least one extra set. For 10 tables this is a bowman. For 7/8 tables I can see nothing better. For 5/6 tables there are full/three-quarter howells.

Ah. I guess I don't know what laws the OP was playing under. The online laws on the WBF website (dated 2001) seem not to correspond to how bridge is played or ruled online (in 2012).

Strange. That's not what Law 69B says chez moi.

Yes. I hesitated to mention consideration of 3♠ and left it out. If 3♠ is "ludicrous" (which here stands for "serious error, wild or gambling") then further adjustment is required: Law 12C1b. I have never heard of this being applied in a club ruling. It is very unlikely that bidding one more in a competitive auction is a serious error. I did rule that competing to 3♥ was wild/gambling, but the player had previously bid 2♥ and had inadequate ♥ support to compete at the two level.

I do not think the ♦10 is exposed during the auction period. Instead I think it is covered by Law 16C1 "... or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins, ...". The TD has to decide if sight of ♦10 could interfere with normal play and rule according to Law 16C2. If the ♦10 was exposed after partner had looked at his own cards and someone had called, then there would be bidding and lead penalties as you suggest: partner must pass once and ♦10 is a penalty card to be played at the first legal opportunity, including the opening lead.

The TD did the right things at the table: agree the facts. In a club, the best way to handle these cases is to decide it at the end of the evening. In a judgement ruling, any TD should consult: the TD could talk to knowledgable players at the club or contact another TD. To decide an unauthorised information ruling the TD should consider: 1. Was there unauthorised information. 2. What action is being questioned. 3. Did the action damage the opponents. 4. Where there logical alternatives to the action. 5. Was the action chosed suggested by the unauthorised information. If there is a positive answer to all questions then adjust to the outcome without the action that was suggested by the unauthorised information. 1. There was a hesitation 2. 3H 3. Yes, 2S= is better than 3S-1 4. I am sure that Pass is a logical alternative for North. Many would bid 3H but some of those would seriously consider Pass, and some would Pass. 5. Hesitation in this sort of auction usually suggests any action over Pass. It is may not be completely clear-cut. But the TD should adjust to the result with 3H replaced by Pass: 2S=.

I think that declarer's acceptance of the ♣A (either by saying so or by playing) removes the requirement to play the penalty to this trick and so the ♣A is no longer a revoke.

Isn't this the same ruling as "Revoke?" Why is this in Simple Rulings? We know the omission of the disposition of the named/misplaced cards in Law 45D after both sides have played to the next trick means that ruling is not simple. We already have two threads on this topic. I think we all "know" that the trick should stand and that defenders have not revoked if they followed to the card misplaced by dummy, but we would like the Laws to say so. (Bah, Humbug!)