RMB1

But expect to be disappointed :(

But there hasn't been a study: the paper and press release are a hoax. The BBC reported the results, despite being told the whole story was unsound, and only retracted when the perpetrators admitted it was a hoax. This lamentable behaviour was reported on More or Less.

Only to a limited extent: in England (EBU) the "zero tolerance" is called "Best Behaviour at Bridge" (BB@B). The successful implementation of BB@B has been limited by: the reluctance to players to call the TD, the difficulty for TDs in determining whether there was an offence that can be penalized, the extent to which offenders with power and influence avoid sanction.

The EBU's approach to Law 27 as codified at the Panel TD weekend last autumn is: Take the offender and way from the table, and discover the intended meaning of the insufficient bid (or whether this is in fact a Law 25 case). Return to table and give LHO his options.Do not tell LHO if Law 27B1a applies or which (if any) calls would be permitted by Law 27B1b. But LHO is allowed to ask questions about their agreements. [*]If the insufficient bid is not accepted, offer to discuss the possible calls with offender away from table. [*]Once offender has made his replacement call, apply law 27B and follow up as necessary (including Law 27D). See my updated spiel for law 27.

I don't think that "Probst cheat" was coined to explain how to make a particular ruling, but to explain why the laws (in particular laws 16, 23, 73) are as they are. I don't think you can give a ruling to a player by saying "I have to rule against you because you did something a cheat would do". Instead you need to explain your ruling using the words "could have known" or "logical alternative not [demonstrably] suggested"

I am sure no TD would use the word "cheat" (in any combination) to a player at the table or in relation to a ruling affecting that player. I suppose I might use the word when consulting a player about a ruling as long as I hadn't identified the players involved. Even if someone else at the table uses the word then I will not repeat it. Player: "Are you accusing me of cheating?" TD: "At the moment I'm not accusing anyone of anything." Player: "He call me a cheat?" TD (to other player): "What did you say, did you use that word?" Player gives a detailed description of strange goings on, clearly suggesting that opponents are cheating. YD: "I agree that appears strange, I think I understand your concerns."

Why? When you serve on an appeals committee you see the appeals form and this guidance is part of the form. Anyway, one could be aware of the guidance without seeing it in that document, it is only an extract from L&E minutes.

I hope I gave some of this information when asked about 4♦ (more than "doesn't exist"). 4♥ looks OK At the end of the hand, the TD asks partner what was 4♦ and what partner thought the partnership agreement (if any) was. If partner thought 4♦ was Texas then the TD might find that your agreement/understanding was Texas and rule that opener's uncertainty was misinformation but opponents are unlikely to be damaged. Obviously all the usual suspects would count as UI (tempo, remarks, gestures) but it is difficult to know what would be suggest by unspecific UI to someone who thinks the bid does not exist. Obviously remarks such as "we agreed 4♦ Texas partner" would suggest 4♥ and would put opener under some constraint.

It means I thought the words "before LHO has called" appeared in Law 25B, as they did before 2007. Oops! :)

Law 31 (footnote 11) says that calls out of rotation at LHO's turn to call when the player has already called are treated as changes of call, and refer to Law 25. I believe the converse is true: changes of call beyond the scope of Law 25 should be treated as calls out of rotation. So the 1♠ bid stands and 1NT is a call out of rotation at partner's turn to call.

A have replied in a separate thread: Misexplanation, misunderstanding and corrected explanation.

As far as I can see, this means that if South corrects when he is supposed to, and West has a chance to change his final Pass, then West can use the extra information that North thought 2♥ was strong when he bid 4♥. But if South does not correct when he is supposed to, West will not get an adjusted score on that basis that he would use the correct information and the extra information. This does not seem a great incentive for South to correct when he is supposed to.

The problem in question 1. is partly a practical one. How should the TD make sure that West only changes his final Pass for the right reason? The right reason being that he is now entitled to know that 2♥ is weak. (The wrong reason being that he now knows that 2H is weak but North described it as strong.) And if the TD correctly instructs West as to the right reason for changing West's call and West changes his final Pass to Double, what sanction does the TD have if the TD decides West's reason for changing was the wrong reason.

A similar problem was doing the rounds at the level of WBF LC a year or so ago (I hope I get his right). South is dealer and opens 2♥ and is raised to 4♥. 2♥ is weak (in fact and by agreement) but when asked (before the opening lead) North says it is strong. West did not double the final contract, and would not double if 2♥ was weak (or if it was strong) and North knew this when he bid 4♥. But West would double if 2♥ was weak and North thought it was strong when he bid 4♥. 4♥ will not make. Two questions: South corrects the explanation before the opening lead, is West allowed to change his final Pass to Double? South does not correct the explanation before the opening lead, but the corrrect explanation comes to light at the end of the hand. Are East/West entitled to an adjustment on the basis that had South corrected at the right time, West would have changed his final Pass to Double?

Yes it is a claim if a defender suggest play is curtailed (Law 68A does not distinguish.) Showing your hand to declarer (only) is regarded as good practice by some, when claiming and conceding some tricks as defender. It is not to avoid problems if declarer does not accept the claim but to avoid problems if partner objects to the concession. Then play continues (Law 68B2) and by not showing his hand to partner, the defender has avoided "problems of UI, penalty cards or whatever".

Yes. Yes. Yes. No. :) You are attempting to curtail play, and anything you do will be a suggestion that play is curtailed; that is a claim (Law 68A). All I can suggest is: show your hand and explain clearly "I think I have the rest, it is quite complicated to explain, but here goes, ... If you discard such-and-such then I will ... ... Is that clear?"

Indeed. At another extreme from "play on", is to start again: get East to pick up his heart, get South to make a legal lead penalty, and take it from there. (I think I can rule East's heart is not a penalty card under Law 50 "... unless the Director designates otherwise.")

As you may be aware EBU Appeals and Desposits guidance takes a different view of this point.

Did South say this as an instruction to East, (trying) to impose a lead penalty? OR did South say this as a question to the TD: "I want a club" ... "What should I do?" ? OR was South just talking to herself ("I want a club" ... "What should I do?") ? I am inclinded to tell them to get on with it. There was a further irregularity (wrong lead penalty) and East played rather than ask for a ruling, so I think Law 11A allows me to refuse any further rectification or penalty to either side. An experienced East may know that if he has no cards of the suit requested, then he can lead what he likes. But it really makes little difference: play continues.

Did anyone ask the player why she/he prematurely detached ♦7? If she says she assumed declarer was going to cash out for his contract then I will not assess a procedural penalty; some other answers and I might decide this was a willful attempt to mislead and assess a penalty. I would adjust under Law 73F: prematurely exposing the card is a guesture (Law 73D2) so is in the scope of Law 73F. It misled, there was no (bridge) reason to "flash" ♦7, and offender could know it would work to his benefit. It might be right to award declarer a proportion of going off: it sounds as if she was considering finessing anyway.

Without screens all players are responsible to correct errors in a review of the auction (Law 20E). . The uncorrected review is not explicitly misinformation, but an adjusted score is possible. Without other regulation, this applies with screens. BUT when bidding boxes are in use, with or without screens, I expect a review to be by inspection of the bidding cards. If the bidding cards have been picked up, I don't see why the onus should be on your opponent to remember the auction correctly if you have forgotten it.

I know not everyone does this, but I would ask about the "stop" procedure: was it followed, was the hesitation longer than the regulation "10 seconds"? If East or West admits there was a hesitation (by West) unmistakably longer that the "stop" procedure, then ruling to 3♠ looks routine.

In some branches of mathematics (e.g. set theory) "null set" means "empty set"; for instance in formulations of the axiom of the empty/null set. In some other branches of mathematics (e.g. measure theory) a "null set" means any set of negligible content (e.g. measure zero). Given that bridge is an essentially discrete realm of discourse, "null set" in this context must mean "empty set".

If the auction is 2♣-(2♠)-2♥ and the agreement is that 2♣-(P)-2♥ has no meaning then we can assume that the 2♥ bidder was not intending to bid on the auction 2♣-(P)- . (It is implicit in our approach to Law 27 that there is an intended meaning for the insufficient bid.) I am sure that if we speak to offender away from the table, he will not say both that he intended to bid 2♥ on the auction 2♣-(P)-2♥ and that their agreement is that all hands bid 2♣-(P)-2♦.

Rarely does the asking player need to know and wants the lead of another suit and gets a lead of that suit.