RMB1

The advice remains in the Orange Book, the successor to the Yellow Book, although it was been toned down a bit.

Without UI I bid 4♠ - the chances that partner has misunderstood 3♥ is too great. I consider 4NT and 5m, but I am not sure how seriously. I am worried that 5♦ will attact a club lead, perhaps I should bid 5♣/5♦ at random. With UI, I would not bid 4♠, if only to avoid the scorn of my TD colleagues. But, as a player, I would be worried that there was no logical alternative to 4♠. I would not penalise a player for bidding 4♠ but I would adjust the score if a poll showed there were logical alternatives to 4♠.

Is this in the right forum?

I imagine the constitution of the WBF defines Zonal Authority and recognises a number of them, being geographical organised. I think that if the club wants to avoid the authority of the EBU as its national authority, the club would need to petition the WBF for recognition as a Zonal Authority but I doubt the club would meet the (implicit) criteria. Anyway, where do the Laws say that the WBF, Zonal Authorities or National Bridge Organisations may make regulation in contradiction of the Laws.

I would see that as instruction for dummy to play a card, an instruction that does not specify suit or rank, and apply Law 46B5.

I don't see sufficient difference between "play anything" and "play one".

"I don't know" is a gratuitous remark. "play one" does not indicate suit or rank: Law 46B5, either defender may choose. "your choice" is not a permitted instruction to dummy.

Good question. We certainly do dismiss that clause in favour of Law 73F. This attitude comes from case law (jurisprudence) and TD training. The final sentence of Law73D is applied as if it read: Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent; but, if there is a demonstrable bridge reason for the variation, an opponent draws any inference at his own risk.

Law 45C4 refers to "names or otherwise designates" and later to "unintended designation". The designation is in the sense of names, or points at, etc. Exposing a card as if to play it is not a designation, and can not be changed under Law 45C4b. East best's shot was to say "and I take the last trick": making it clear that exposing the ♦Ace was a claim. :)

I had stopped reading these threads but I can say that the EBU White Book is the place to look. (my italics)

But some of the peers of 'players who bid x' are players who 'think it is the correct evaluation and wouldn't bid again'. Ususually that means that bidding how those peers would bid is a logical alternative.

It was a guess in the sense of an opening gambit in a discussion/consultation I might have with a fellow TD. We often allow people to rebid eight card suits when partner tries to play in the rebidder's void. That initial post was thinking out loud; as indictated by "but" and then two reasons why one might pass. As it was, that initial post crossed with blackshoe who said Pass was not a logical alternative. So my guess was right in the sense that some might think the Pass was not a logical alternative.

My first instinct is that if double of 2♦ has no particular meaning, would that (lack of) meaning change if the meaning of 2♦ was different? In which case, would the non-offending side bid any different with a different explanation. But I guess 2♥ should have been alerted(?) and explained as to play in overcaller's major. So with a correct explanation of 2♦ or 2♥, opener would not necessarily bid 3♣ in case partner wants to double 2♠. Depending on the 2♥ bidder's hand, the offenders might declare 2♠X or 3♥X, presumably going off. But really there is no substitute for asking the non-offending side at the earliest opportunity how they would have bid differently with a different explanation, and basing any adjustment on their answer. It may be that 3NT is a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or wild or gambling" in the sense of Law 12C1b, depending on local guidelines, in which case neither side will get a good score.

Assuming no body language (and no "history" of 3♣ as just clubs) then this leaves 5♣. I guess pass is not a logical alternative to 5♣, but South's spade suit could be as good as North's club suit (without the UI), 4♠ has not been doubled.

If partner has a history of bidding 3♣ with clubs and not spades, then you (may) have an implicit agreement that 3♣ shows clubs and spades or just clubs; this agreement may not be legal, depending on local regulations (and perhaps on how the bid is explained). If you have got an implicit agreement, then you should call the TD and correct your original explanation. The TD may give you some instruction but you should be free to act, but there may be a rectification if the implicit agreement is not legal. If you have no partnership understanding that 3♣ may be just clubs, then you are free to decide that partner has misbid. Someone might want to record the hand (in case it is evidence that you do have, or will have, and implicit agreement).

I don't understand this at all. Whether 2/1 is 10+ or GF, a 2NT rebid that is 15+ or 18+ is still forcing. If forcing 2NT is alertable then any of 15-17, 15-19 or 18-19 is alertable. So even if there should be an alert, and the lack of alert is UI, I don't see what is suggests.

Its a request for a ruling not an appeal and the ruling will not be influenced by the effect it might have on the final ranking. NS need to do more that say "everyone else was in game our way so we deserve +630". The EW auction will not change: West has not UI and East has not (IMO) used UI. So the TD needs to ask NS what they would have done differently with different information: if 2♦ is described as a multi, and the remaining bids are natural. The most credible answer is that North will double at some stage. The TD needs to assess the credibility of some action by NS. The TD might produce a weighted score involving 3NT-8 and 3NTX-8. But the TD might decide that NS would not act differently with the correct explanation of 2♦ and let the table result stand.

What happens is that offender convinces the TD that some call (Pass, Double, 2NT?) shows both majors and a minimum over the 2♦ intervention. The offender makes this call, the TD explains that under Law 27B1b, responder is not silenced, and responder now knows that the new call shows the same as (or more precise than) the insufficient bid. The offending side do not need to have a clear agreement about this sequence as long as offender is believed by the TD. A brave TD will rule that they have no definite agreements for intervention over Extended Stayman, and rule there is no call that meets Law 27B1b, so offender may Pass or make a sufficient bid but responder will be silenced.

I think the laws (that is, the current interpretation) try too hard to allow recovery from mistakes, in a way that players find inconsistent, and TDs operate inconsistently. I think that "pause for thought", or the lack of, should start when the call is made (is released on the table). This would be the same as for spoken bidding: the only chance to realise what you had said (and to change it) was as you had said it. It would be a mistake to make a call without looking at what call you had actually put on the table, and if you did not look at the time the call was made then the mistaken call would be irrevocable. I think such an approach would be much more satisfactory and more uniformly applied. So here is a proposed rewording of Law 25. The exceptions remain for definiteness: it is not expected that they could apply because there would invariably have been time for a "pause for thought" to have elapsed. It would be necessary to delete "if the offender has not previously called" and the footnote, from Law 31B.

The laws do say that any play that the flawed claimer will benefit from will be lumped in with plays that are careless and inferior. How far is "stupid" from "careless and inferior"?

In a different topic, I suggested Law 25A should be interpreted so that a "pause for thought" starts when the call is made. This was contested, and I thought it had gone too off topic to continue there. So, delete "Until his partner makes a call", if it unnecessary. But I will not concede that any proposed re-interpretation of any law is wrong, because it would mean the original law could have been better phrased. Many of us believe many of the laws could well be better phrased, even with their current interpretaions.

I am "unhappy" that partner's alert can lead to a Law 25A change. But my "position" is that it can: because that is how I have been instructed.. I would be happy if a Law 25A change were only permitted if there had been no help from anyone (partner or opponents). I do not like a change being permitted after an opponent asks "is that natural?" I am not sure who interpreted "without pause for thought" as starting from when a player realised what they bid, rather than (the obvious interpretation :)) from when the call was made; but I think they did the game a disservice.

It not a bridge skill but a life skill: in this sort of position, an immediate apology works wonders.

Did North draw attention to the hesitation when (or before) East bid 6♥? I would be suspicious of a call by South at the end of the hand. How do we know the hesitation was obvious on the NE side of the screen.

There are not usually procedural penalties for failure to alert. Failure to alert is dealt with as misinformation, and if the non-offending side are damaged there can be an adjusted score. However, if the offenders are doubling on less than 15 but claiming their agreement is that double shows 15+ then it should be pointed out to them their actual (implicit) agreement appears to be different from their stated (explicit) agreement and they should change their explanation (and should alert). If their agreement is that they double routinely on less than 15, and they have been told they should alert, and they repeatedly do not, then procedural penalties should be issued each time they do not alert: the penalties increasing each time.