RMB1

It is a matter of judgement whether the particular "nice 12 count" is as strong as a "king above average". But the real answer is: if you are an unknown player from an NBO without policical clout, then yes ("Summary execution"); if you are a well known player from an NBO with clout, then your opponents will be reprimanded for even asking the question. :)

If the correct player has led face down and this has not faced, then we are in the auction period. Declarer's exposed cards remain faced on the table and the auction is still over. When the opening lead is faced, the cards are picked up and dummy is put down. Play continues. Declarer's previously exposed cards are authorised information for the defenders. If the correct player has faced the opening lead then the TD determines that declarer did not intend to claim, tells declarer to pick up his cards (and ... as above). Defenders may have been misled if (for instance) declarer exposed apparent complete suits but left one card of the suit hidden. Law 73F applies.

Q. What is your all time favourite bridge joke? A. Partner.

... when partner's best efforts to go down were unequal to the defenders' efforts to let it through.

4NT (= three aces) :)

But if had claimed after he had played ♣9 from dummy and before he had played from hand, then you would give him all three tricks. (?)

The revoke is established: Law 61A3. "Revoke becomes established ... when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or ..." If the revoke is not established, it is corrected and play continues: declarer makes all the tricks.

I think I need some sort of poll. Possible calls (calls that might be considered) are Pass, 3NT, 4♦, 4♠, 5♦. If a poll/consultation shows that anyone would actually bid them, then they are logical alternatives. I think the UI suggests 3NT over playing in a suit, so I would "disallow" 3NT if there are logical alternatives to 3NT. My hunch, without consultation is that Pass is a logical alternative, so I would adjust.

There is a footnote to Law 64A2: "A trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law".

This does not apply if dummy wins the trick and declarer revokes from his hand.

I don't think that North on his own can have a concealed partnership agreement. If North says "majors" but the agreement is "natural" and North bids as if it is "majors" then North has concealed the agreement but South has not misbid. North has changed his mind (for a number of reasons: he had another think, looked at his hand, received UI from partner) and should have called the TD and changed his explanation. But he is (apparently) guilty of misexplanation and there is no automatic penalty for misexplanation, we just rule on the basis of damage to the non-offending side. Because the regulation talks about fielded misbids: there has to be a misbid for there to be an automatic penalty. As I understand it, there has to be some apparent conspiracy between both members of the partnership to bid one way and explain it another way for there to be a fielded misbid ruling. If the bidder thought he was bidding according to partnership agreements (and those agreements are permitted) then it can not be "fielded". It can be deliberately misexplained and perhaps there should be an automatic penalty for that. Thanks. Otherwise my reply would have been longer and confused.

I did consider a fielded misbid when replying originally. That is why we needed to ask South why he bid 3♦ and ask North why he passed. I expected that NS did not have an agreement that 3♦ showed the majors; and that South had not misbid. In my opinion there needs to be an agreement on the meaning of a call for there to be a misbid (and a fielded misbid).

In Law 45C4b, the "pause for thought" starts when the designation is made (what other interpretation is possible). It does not start when the player realises what designation has been made: when he realises what he said; indeed, if he misspoke, he might never know/realise what he said.

Hi, and welcome. I do not recognise the term "Green sticker" and I am not sure your first question has much to do with the second. The WBF uses the term "Brown sticker" for opening bids (2C to 3S) that may be weak and do not show a suit. Transfer preempt openings (and overcalls) are not brown sticker if they promise 4 cards in the suit transfered to. If an insufficient bid (2D) was intended as a transfer response (and the TD determines, away from the table, that this is the meaning of the insufficient bid) then it is possible that 3D will not silence offenders partner (under Law 27B1b). It does not matter whether the insufficient bid or the correction is natural.

The usual correction period applies to requests for a ruling (e.g. 30 minutes after the end of the session); so it is out of time to get the scores changed. But the director or organiser could investigate and inform the pair that such methods were not permitted and should not be played in future. If you think the pair should know the methods are not permitted or should know to check, then you are under some obligation to inform the organisers. I would ask the TD at the end of the auction or at the end of the hand.

For me it just a question of odds/frequency. At the table and on-line, when I see the auction 1NT-(not pass)-2♦-(Pass)-2♥ opener bid 2♥ because he thought 2♦ was a transfer. On-line, where there are partnerships who have not discussed these sequences and there is no UI, these auctions occur all the time. As responder, I would bid on that assumption because (for me) it is overwhelming likely that is what is going on, and it is wrong to buck those odds. If others have different experience, they will make different assumptions and bid differently. If those with different experience are peers of South in the OP then South will be constrained by the UI.

The EBU L&E committee think the current position may be illegal, does that count as "controversial". The minutes of 21 September 2011:

I count eight hearts in East's hand. True. She may have been unable to solve them if North bid 2♥ after 2♦ was explained as "undiscussed".

Very few Regulating Authorities prohibit defenders asking one another: Germany may be the only one.

Is Pass an option?

If the specific rules take precedence over the general and the specific rules in Orange Book 5E/5F/5G cover all bids, pass, doubles and redoubles, when do the general rules in 5B ever apply?

Why oh why did North guess, or not say he was guessing. "Undiscussed: could be system on or system off", and there would be no ruling. In my world, South has not used UI. South knew it was undiscussed whether 2♦ was natural, 2♥ suggests partner has guessed otherwise, so the alert does not tell South anything useful. Is East claiming to be misinformed: how many hearts does he think there are? Score stands.

If a direct double of 1NT can be made on a balanced hand with less than 15 HCP then it should be alerted (see Orange Book 5G4). But you can agree any range of values (or any shape) for a double of 1NT (at level 3/4, see Orange Book 11P7). If your double shows 15 HCP (in a balanced hand) or the values to defeat 1NT (in a not balanced hand), then this is not alertable. At level 2, a "penalty" double of 1NT is only permitted if it is at least 12 HCP (Orange Book 11P2(a)). Also note (Orange Book 4H2):

I think it is difficult to rule without asking North why they passed 3♦. If 3♦ is explained as natural, West might double (minimum values, concentrated in opponent's suit?) Then North might not feel able to pass (depending on the reasons for their original pass) and who knows where the auction would end.

The following regulations from the EBU Orange Book may be relevant: It is possible that the inference that 2♣ in the OP might possibly be removed and that the subsequent redouble was for takeout would likewise be considered general bridge knowledge.