RMB1

I think, given the wording of the Law 45B, whereever the Laws say dummy has [mis]played a card (as dummy's own action) this should be read as dummy has [mis]placed a card in the played position.

If declarer called for a heart from dummy on the first trick, then that card was played and was the card led to the trick. The fact that dummy contributed a different card and that different card is the one ultimately quit as part of the trick does not change the card led: nothing in Law 45D changes which card was played. So it appears that the club by the defenders was a revoke. (Bah, humbug!) In other circumstances, this problem could affect the ownership of the trick. Say declarer calls for a heart but dummy puts a club in the played position, and one defender plays a higher club; but declarer plays a heart and the other defender plays a lower heart. My reading of Laws 44F/45B/45D is that declarer wins the trick, not the defender with the club. I suggest a second paragraph in Law 45D: "If attention is drawn after each side has played to the next trick, the trick stands as played: the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick. If dummy led to trick then ownership of the trick and any revoke is determined with respect to the suit of the card misplayed by dummy (not the suit of the card named by declarer)."

In England, we have a regulation which allows the TD to say that picking up the cards is a Pass. In my opinion, this should only apply (picking up the cards constituting a Pass) if the player is in the habit of not making any positive action to denote a final Pass. I think the only real answer is that if you do not make any positive denotation of a a final Pass then partner should ask if the auction is over when the opening lead is made face down.

There are two aspects to what should happen now. The departing player should be disciplined following the sanctions and procedures available to the TD and the Tournament Organiser. If a substitute can be found, I would cancel the 7NT bid and allow the substitute to call. On BBO, I would instruct the substitute to request an UNDO (and instruct opponents to acceed). Face-to-face, I would deem the disqualification of the departing player to start before he bid 7NT.

Creating unauthorised information is not an infraction: sometimes it is unavoidable (answering questions), sometimes it is avoidable (gratuitous remarks), and sometimes it just happens (you just do have to think or ask questions).

Oops! Sorry. It is possible that the ♠5 has become an exposed and a minor penalty card. If so, the knowledge of the ♠5 in South is unauthorised to North. If all discards from North are logical alternatives then keeping ♠K is suggested by the unauthorised information and so not permitted by Law 16. Otherwise, the TD has to determine whether discarding ♠K and keeping ♣A is a normal play for North, playing independently. From the diagram, it looks as if there is uncertain about the club/spade suits. :) So keeping either a top ♠ or ♣ looks normal.

It appears that the TD must decide what is normal for declarer to discard from dummy on a heart, given that declarer does not know what his thirteenth card is. To me it appears obvious that all three possible discards are normal plays, and so I award the defence one trick (♠5 losing to ♠J). I am not convinced that South even claimed the last trick.

I do not understand, did both defenders accept the claim (without looking)? Online tournaments may have different rules, but the law for face-to-face bridge is that if you agree to a claim and later disagree, then you get any tricks it is likely that you would have won (had play continued); Law 69B. The TD would have to determine if it is likely that you would play a ♠ and then you would get one trick. (Perhaps, if the TD determines that it is likely that you would play ♠Q, you would get two tricks.)

What is double here?

I think the TD should use the calls made to assess who are the peers of the player with UI; this may involve some judgement of the aptness of the calls made.

It is quite possible to have implicit understanding based on previous actions and only identify that one has such an understanding when the situation arises and you are asked about it. These understandings have been concealed, but this is not deliberate and is a long way from cheating.

Not round here, I think it is universally understood where I play and direct. I think there are many places where bridge is played where "play" is used and is understood to not mean the same as "play anything"; and I think that in many places where it is so understood, it would be peverse to rule that the difference was not incontrovertible.

Disagree. :) Law 46B: "(except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible)" If "everyone" knows what "play" means, then declarer's intention is incontrovertibly different from "play anything".

In the absence of any unauthorised information (was attention drawn to the irregularity?, did partner say anything?) or any concealed partnership understanding (does partner have a habit of making insufficient bids??, on particular hands???), there would appear to be no legal constraints. The ethical thing to do (to avoid gaining any advantage from the irregularity) is probably to rebid 1NT and treat partner's second bid as a response to a 1NT opening bid.

I think you mean "call" not "bid", and in fact it will be a Pass.

I am not surprised that East was miffed. As a TD I would not change the score but I would record the hand, and record the fact that NS had adopted these methods because they were not alertable. The club would be free to express their opinion that NS's approach was not the way they wanted bridge played at their club, or to change the club's regulations for permitted methods and alerting (including pre-alerting). At County/National level, I would make a report of the hand in case the Regulating Authority thought it was evidence in favour of a change of regulation.

There is no legal basis for the TD to change the score. There is nothing illegal about an agreement/understanding that 5♦ is to play on this auction. If you decided that 5♦ must be a slam try with ♠ agreed: what law has been broken, what law tells you how to adjust the score?

But there must be a line. At some point an explanation is sufficiently clear and unambiguous and any misunderstanding is the fault of those hearing the explanation. The Laws do allow that players can misunderstand (Law 21A) or not pay sufficient attentions (Law 74B1). It can not be an absolute defence to say I understood explanation X to mean Y and get an adjustment. But the onus must be on the explaining side to be clear and unambiguous. To me (and campboy) this explanation was clear and unambiguous and we have to strain to start to understand it as EW did. This is perhaps because we have heard the explanation before, and "know" that 4D means "bid your major" and that 4C/4D mean different things. As I said earlier, I would not rule solely on the basis of my understanding of the explanation, but I would try to establish how EW's peers would understand the explanation. I would also establish if EW's peers would expect to protect themselves by asking the meaning of 4♥ (over the Double).

I was just trying to focus in on what the issues were, not suggesting that there was necessaruily a fielded misbid. We could rule red fielded misbid if we thought the only reason for 5♥ was a concealed implicit agreement that 4♥ could be long ♥ (presumably, an implicit agreement based on opener having forgotten before).

It is not clear if these were responses to questions or just a description of the calls. I assume that only 3NT was alerted and no explanations were given during the auction, so North/South had no UI. ... in which case the only adjustment would be a fielded misbid for AVE-/AVE+, but it looks like NS have already lost the comparisons by more than the relevant amount.

If partner is going to bid like that, then the main advantage of reponding 2♥ is that you get to play in a 7 card fit game at the 4 level rather than the 5 level.

I assume declarer (responder) had a singleton and a doubleton. I do not think there were necessarily any psychic bids on the auction. I think that there was a disagreement about the meaning of 3NT (which means there was also an implicit lack of agreement about 2♣). Opener has shown a balanced hand, with 4 ♥ and then 4 ♠. Responder has shown interest in 4 card majors, a desire to play in 3NT, and a desire to play in 5♦. Responder thinks he can bid 2♣ and then 3NT on hand with short hearts. Opener thinks 3NT shows a balanced hand with a 4 card major. It is possible that the opponents would/could have explained what the bids meant, and the disagreement, at the end of the auction.

I would need a lot of convincing that the explanation was ambiguous and could likely be misunderstood. This is about the most commom meaning for this auction, with texas (transfer to responder's heart suit) being the only alternative meaning that is usually agreed. Are we sure that both EW misunderstood the explanation in the same way? I would have to ask some of the players at the event. If they would understand from the explanation that a subsequent 4♥ showed spades then I would rule that EW had been damaged by their own misunderstanding.

I disagree, they may not have discussed the concept of a forcing pass but they do know that when they have opened with their strongest bid that they will not pass out the opponents: "I had to double, partner".

Most retail outlets in Britain no longer accept cheques.