RMB1

There is no automatic penalty for using the stop card when it is not required. North is not allowed to use any information from partner's use of the stop card. If South intended to bid 3♥ and did not notice that they had bid 2♥ until West's comment and then attempted to change 2♥ without pause for thought (calling the TD counts as an attempt to change) then the TD should permit a correction to 3♥. South is allowed to use West's question to realise he bid 2♥. He does not have any unauthorised infromation and may bid as he likes.

It does mean that in the EBU.

I think it is ridiculous for someone to claim to be misinformed by this explanation. It clearly applies to a different auction (e.g. one in which the overcalling side were already forced to game). LHO should either have ignored the explanation or called the TD and sought clarification at the time. Claiming that your were misinformed afterwards does the game and atmosphere of club no favours whatsoever.

Sure. I would like to say it is general bridge knowledge that some cue bids are "tactical". But obviously many players do not have this knowledge. I don't think we expect this to be disclosed: players are expected to gain this general bridge knowledge the hard way.

The director needs to form an opinion on whether the bid showed a diamond control as an explicit agreement, and whether there was any implicit agreement that contradicted this. If East claims he knew their agreements when he showed a diamond control, but the bid was a psyche, then the TD needs to be concerned whether the partnership has a history of such psyches so as to change their implicit agreement. Law 21B1b means the TD needs evidence of their agreements to rule that it was a misbid/psyche rather than a misexplanation. If the TD determines that the bid was misexplained rather than a misbid/psyche then he can adjust under Law 47E. If there is a regulation that artificial bids can't be pscyhed and that regulation specifies that an adjusted score may be awarded then perhaps such an adjustment is possible. [but the adjusted score may be on the basis that the psyche did not happen not that the psyche were explained as if it were the partnership agreement.] If there is a regulation that artificial bids can't be pscyhed and that regulation specifies a different penalty, then that penalty should be applied. But if there is a regulation that artificial bids can't be pscyhed, it usually only applies to bids on the first round of the auction, and often there is no specified penalty.

Then we give some credence to South that he would not necessarily lead the ♠A with a different explanation. But South is only entitled to "no agreement" as an explanation. Perhaps the TD should ask people what they would lead with that explanation, and how they expect the play to go subsequently, and weight the possible outcomes in 4♥ accordingly.

In England, for instance, all the bids above 3NT would not be alertable. Again, in England, declarer and partner are not required/supposed to post-alert or volunteer explanations. Defenders are expected to ask.

Some posters from Australia extol the virtues of an "anything goes" approach to permitted argreements. The downside of such an approach is that inexperienced players at club level have to content with such conventions (and this bidding "style"). The club may or may not have the power to regulate conventions at club events (or in Australia-wide simultaneous events) depending on how such powers are delegated by the national bridge organisation. That said, the EBU (regarded by some as regulation-heavy) permits all defences to 1NT at level 3 and so this convention would be permitted in most clubs.

I suggest this is similar to Law 45F (Dummy Indicates Card). North retains all his options but if the action suggested by dummy has damaged the opponents then the TD awards an adjusted score.

How can reverse hesitation be a worth-while tactic on this hand? The poll shows that 50% would bit regardless of hesitation, so you haven't achieved anything. In general, if one member of a partnership is unethical enough to try a reverse hesitation, is his partner likely to be ethical enough to pass with a marginal action because of the hesitation? IMHO these apparently deeply sinister reverse hesitations rarely happen deliberately.

But 4♣ is Gerber (so its not permitted under Law 27B1a or b).

? A draw is 15-15 on 25VP scale, so 13-13 is a loss for both sides.

Sorry, I did not mean to offend. There are players in England who ask about e.g. Blackwood responses when they have no interest. This can create UI problems when the opponents appear to take advantage of hearing a (mis)explanation. Some of these players appear to ask these questions with this end in mind. I am sure that jillybean and partner are not such players.

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against. :)

For what its worth, the EBU approach is as follows. Assuming the players are at fault, the match is scored 8-8 VP on 20VP scale. This become 13-13 VP on a 25VP scale. (The EBU regards the 25VP scale as a 20-0 scale with 5VP added. If for instance it was regarded as a 0-30 scale with a cap at 25, then perhaps the regulation would be 12-12.) But the regulation has a final codicil:

I thought the OP suggested "something should be done" although there was no damage from the UI. I suggested that the only other thing that could be done was a PP and if you felt strongly that a PP was appropriate then the player should mention that to the TD. I should not have mentioned the UI from "squirms", it was a irrelevant and a distraction.

What is the basis of this comment? Cyberyeti was explaining when bidding cards are picked-up. What he is describing is common practice and conforms to our regulations. The basis of his comment is observation of bridge in England, which coincides with my observation. What is the basis of your question? :)

If you think this is a flagrant use of UI and a procedural penalty is appropriate, you could call the TD at the end of the hand and say "even if there is no damage, I think this is a flagrant use of UI and I think a procedural penalty is appropriate". Hasn't opener got UI from "East squirms and bids 4♥". Hasn't opener used this UI to pass out 4♥ when he had earlier explained that 4♥ would be a slam try?

Partner has already defined their hand, so why is double take-out?

If he means he meant to make an insufficient bid then we explain the law about deliberate infractions and some how "throw the book" at him. If he meant to psyche a bid he thought was sufficient, we ask him what auction he thought he was in, and ask him what his call would have meant (systemically) in the auction he thought he was in. We then apply Law 27B1 to that "intended" meaning.

If Pass is a logical alternative for North and Double looks like an attempt to wake up partner then I think we should issue a procedural penalty to North, regardless of any Law 12C1 adjustment.

The regulations do tell us the Pass was not made; but they don't tell us what to do with a call left on the table.

Dealer has not passed. He did not take out a pass card from the bidding box with apparent intent to call uring the auction period on this board. Instead he appears to be guilty of failing to follow correct procedure in not returning his bidding cards to the bidding box before starting this board. It would be possible to rule that not result can be obtained and rule AVE-/AVE+. Or the auction (starting with LHO's call) should be allowed to stand and a result be optained. Dealer could receive a procedural penalty or (less likely) there might be an adjustment under Law 73F (dealer has misled LHo into thinking that he has passed).

If you call the TD, I am sure that the TD will rule that the auction stands, you will not be allowed to change your initial pass. The TD probably should rule that you did not pass and that your LHO opened out of turn, so the pass card should be tidied away. But if you go down this route, partner will know that you did not intend to Pass and it is difficult to see how this is not UI. So I think a better option is to not draw attention to what has happened until the end of the auction (or even the end of the play). Just bid 3NT now and hope you have the majors stopped and/or partner's club suit runs.

I don't think East has got UI. 2♣ appears to be based on the UI but I don't know why the UI suggested a non-forcing bud. Perhaps West thought 2♣ was a logical alternative and chose it because it was not suggested. (Was the TD re-called at the end of the auction/play. Did anyone ask West why he bid 2♣?) It is difficult to judge 3NT in the context of the earlier auction, but taken on its own, it is the only logical alternative.