RMB1

At WBF (and EBL) events, we have many for whom English is not their first language. Many of those involved in this story (TD, players, vugraph operator) no doubt speak excellent English but the words used to express the ruling may have been for an audience of English-as-a-foreign-language.

Brown sticker regulations cover 2♣ through 3♠. There are no WBF restrictions on opening bids from 3NT upwards (or an opening 1NT).

For stayman to be a psychic control it would have to be mandatory or used on unsuitable hands (for instance, bidding 2♣ on a balanced raise to 3NT with no 4 card major).

No. He is required to follow the laws: Law 16 "may not choose from logical alternative", Law 73 "must carefully avoid taking advantage".

If they they play a system where 1♣ shows 2 clubs (exactly) then I do not expect them to announce "short, two clubs", I expect them to alert and explain (when asked). Without knowing the announcing regulations, I expect the announcement "short, ?? clubs" to apply when 1♣ shows (natural) clubs or a balanced hand.

Before 2007, regulation applied to "conventional" calls and if a suit bid had a meaning that related to values in a suit other than the suit bid then it was conventional. So Flannery and Ekrens 2H were conventional and could be regulated. At international level, Ekrens 2H was not Brown Sticker so was allowed in all WBF (and EBL) events. After 2007, regulation applies to "special" partnership agreements, and regulatory authorities can ban anything that is special (which really means they can ban anything).

This would occur if the TD uses Law 12C1d to award an adjusted score of NS AVE+/EW AVE- and the score NS could have got before the SEWoG would score better than AVE+. Then all the damage from NS's poor score from the SEWoG would be self-inflicted, they get to keep their table score but EW score AVE-.

So when I'm going for -1100 I just sit out the clock and get 40% :)

If you psyche a weak NT nobody noticed: he showed a bad hand ... he seemed to turn up with a bad hand (... perhaps it was a bit off shape). I psyched at the weekend and nobody noticed, even when I passed a forcing bid and my hand went down as dummy; I think my fellow players' expectations of light opening bids is lighter than I thought.

I have always interpreted the Orange Book statement about proper disclosue to mean that if your opening 2C/2D may contain hands that meet "8 clear cut tricks" but do not meet Rule of 25 or 16+ HCP, then something in the description should indicate a "8 clear cut tricks" hand, which does not sound like a Rule of 25 / 16+ HCP hand. I have always favoured a statement about the minimum distributional hand that would make the opening: "could be an 8 trick hand with a long suit and nothing much more than an ace outside". Not an official answer (although perhaps I am an official).

To play a (27 board) web with an odd number of tables you need to take-off 9 tables to leave an even number of tables and then do a web movement with those tables. In your case (11 tables) this reduces to what you have already described. I like to give table 10 boards 1-12, and get them to pass the boards to table 9, table 11 starts with 25-27, 22-24, 19-21, 16-18, and board come out of play at table 1. In round 5, tables 10, 11, and 1 are sharing two sets of 13-15; so start each table with a different board (13,14,15). In round 6, table 10 has 16-27 from table 11, still passing to table 9, and table 11 has 1-12 (played in reverse) from table 1, boards from table 1 are permenantly out of play.

That I think is the point. Assuming no one psyches 15-17 1NT but nevertheless someone open 1NT on 6HCP and partner passes with the values to raise, then it is very likely 1NT was not a psyche it was a call based on a concealed partnership to sometimes open 1NT on 6HCP and not to disclose this.

Thanks, those are the sort of answers that I expected for purposes of the exercise. In the later cases, South will usually say more (but more noise than signal). 1 and 2: Green Somewhere between 3 and 4 is Amber, not sure how I would rule on actual 3 and 4. 5 and 6: Red

Postponing answering the question for the moment. In practice we would ask both players why they bid as they did. If either appears totally clueless then there may be nothing to record/clasify. If either deviation from system / common evaluation is due to some mechanical problem then it may not be a psyche or it may not be red. I suspect that the way the classifications appear in practice does not match well with the wording in the Orange Book, and ultimately this is what OP is trying to address.

But lots of people who were there would know who East was if East walked out and refused to play; and at least one person who was not there (MickyB was playing in Manchester that day) know about the incident.

There are lots of different circumstances where different ruling would be possible. I think "don't be so ridiculous" sounds like an attempt to prevent Y from calling the director, and it is upsetting because it is calling Y ridiculous. In contrast: "that's ridiculous" (for example) sounds like strong disagreement with Y's contention that there has been an infraction. It is not attempting to prevent the TD being called, nor is it calling Y ridiculous. We also have to be aware that we are not speaking the same language (just because we use the same words). "don't be so ridiculous" could carry very different meaning in America than in England, or indeed in Norfolk than in London or Devon.

If Y is upset by the remark then I fine X the standard disciplinary penalty. If Y is not upset (and just thinks X is a prat) and X is regrets his remark (heat of the moment) then I tell X that his remark is inappropriate and upsetting;. You have to be there, but there should probably be a fine regardless. Irrelevant: the remark is upsetting and inappropriate regardless.

This is a good question, which is not addressed in Law 12C1b (even for simple matchpoints). As a practical matter, I would compare the other tables with the adjusted score awarded to the offending side. This is what happens if you enter the adjusted score as "the" score for the table and do the non-offending side's score as a (manual) adjustment. If the non-offenders score is calculated as (table score) + (adjusted score) - (what they could have score withouth the error) then you could calculate the score for pairs comparing with the non-offending side by calculating their score when the non-offending get each of those three scores and applying the same formula.

I assumed (probably rashly) that in this regulatory environment, weak twos on 5 card suits and NT openers on singletons were not permitted (special) partnership agreements.

Since this sequence is forcing (as I understand it), you could also include: 1♣-1♠; 2♥-2♠; 2NT/3♣/3♦/3♥-3♠/4♠

I try to use "over" for action by the next player in rotation, who makes "overcalls". This leaves "after" for other continuations.

At EBU level 2 (first level above "Simple Systems") and above, One No Trump Opening Bids (OB 11F1): All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention. So you can play 1NT-(any)-2♥ as Hearts or Spades. Indeed some players who don't have any (other) weak bid with diamonds, play 1NT-(Pass)-2♦ as a transfer to ♥ or to play in 3♦ (some even know to alert and to explain it fully).

This happened to me, as a player. [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp2dp3hp4np5dp5hppp]133|100[/hv] After 5♦, East asks and is told (by South) "one Ace or King of trumps". North declares 5♥. At trick 3 or 4, the play has gone strangely from dummy's perspective and South realises that North does not have any key cards. South then remembers that their agreement is 40/31 (and knows this is on their card). North knew the agreement and had given the correct response, but forgot to correct the explanation at the end of the auction. 1. Should South call the TD and correct his explanation now (as required by Law 20F4) or should he say nothing until the end of play (Law 9A3)? 5♥ makes but the defence would probably have cashed the first three tricks if they knew declarer had no aces. The hand has taken a long time and the round finished some minutes ago. South suggests that the defence have been damaged and are due another trick, but East/West just want to move. 2. Should South call the TD now?

On this auction my logical alternatives at North's second call are 3♠ and 4♠. In my universe, 3♥ is based on ♠ support. If considering adjusting on the basis that North is deemed to bid 4♠ then I think South will wake up and pass, so no change.

You mean EW get the result of the adjusted score: -600 for -11 IMPS Yes. I have a spreadsheet for these calculations that I mean to smarten up and release to the world.