RMB1

This is a more complicated case but only because of the adjustment trying to account for MI and UI. The "middle" score in the 12C1b calculation is the score the non offenders could have got if they had avoided making the SEWoG. It will often be a result that does not occur anywhere else in the TD's considerations. It could also be a weighted score (for instance, if the number of tricks in 4D was uncertain). So the non-offenders would score: weighted IMPs for the adjustement - IMPs(4D) + IMPs(4H-3)

I have no problem with the DIC decision not to penalize: he thinks there was no malice in the decision to bid 3NT. There is problem with players not listening. They (as a partnership) do something wrong, they know they are headed for a bad score, they think the ruling will be like one they have had before, they don't really listen to the TD, and then they don't want to look more stupid by asking the TD to explain; so they just go with what they think the ruling would be and get in to more trouble.

This month's "English Bridge" (EBU Magazine) celebrates the EBU's 75 anniversary and carries some articles from 1936. One article discusses opening on a 1156 hand and compares six different bidding systems: with wildly different choices on this hand. If our (great)grandparents couldn't agree on one bidding system, how can we expect any commonality now?

I don't think the UI (before 4NT) suggests one alternative over another. Even if Pass is not a logical alternative, I allow it and allow the result to stand.

Is no one concerned about South's 4♣? As I read it, North corrected South's explanation of 3♣. North's explanation is UI to South. I think Pass of 3NTX is a logical alternative for South, and 4♣ is suggested by the explanation that 3♣ is weak.

Nigel, quoting Cabaret: See Godwin's Law

If there is no logical alternative to 3♠ then (of course) East would bid it. We disagree whether Pass would be a logical alternative.

The adjustment would be on the basis that West gave the wrong late explanation (creating UI) but North was still correctly informed (so there is no MI). We can imagine a scenario where North reads the correctly completed system card, or knows that East never plays good-bad 2NT.

It used to be clearer: terms definited in the sections on Disclosure and Convention Cards were suitable for use in disclosure and for appearing on convention cards; terms defined in section 9 on Regulation of Agreements were "local" definitions to be used for understanding of the regulation of agreements in sections 9, 10 and 11. With the Glossary being move to the back and some definition being moved/repeated there, some of this clarity has been lost.

I find it strange that the AC think East would be "off the hook" to run to 5♦. On the presumed auction 2♦-2♥-3♥-4♥-P-(X)-P-(P)-?: I know many might bid 5♦ but surely it is worth considering passing and some would Pass, so Pass is a logical alternative and East would have to Pass. Why couldn't the AC and the people waiting the result adjourn to the bar?

+1 Someone called Diana posting pictures of Prince William's wedding - I smell a conspiracy theory. :) (I think I've got the picture sourced right: I did not pay much attention to The Wedding.)

I have no problem in Law 27 being changed to say something else, many have suggested that making the insufficient bid unauthorised would be a part of a cleaner/clearer approach to Law 27 (for instance Things we know that we know); but it would be a change.

Is this getting us anywhere? Are there rulings we should be giving differently as a result of the textual analysis? Some laws are badly worded. Law 16 is dealing with some difficult concepts (transition between data/information/knowledge) so it not surprising that the wording may leave something to be desired. I am happy that Law 27 says that partner of the insufficient bidder may base his bidding on the facts that the insufficient bidder made two calls at his turn to call: the insufficient bid and the replacement. If I know that this is what Law 27 says because I have been told so, rather than what an analysis of the text reveals, then so be it. Perhaps those aspects of Law 27 and Law 16 can be improved: I doubt that the WBF LC will have that aspect of Law 27 as a priority for revision. Again, please can we have an example where the ruling should be different.

I propose that any two bid be allowed that the partnership describes as 'string'. Furthermore, a partnership may use the word 'string' to mean whatever it chooses. Is that any different from the ACBL position? Is it a useful regulation?

Either way, as an experienced player and TD playing a relatively new player, his remarks were ill-judged.

To expand, Level 5 permits anything that is not HUM or Brown-Sticker. HUM only applies up to 1NT, and Brown-Sticker only applies if there are weak options, so any 2-bid that shows at least average values is permitted, with no special disclosure requirements. Nevertheless, if the hand does not meet the explanation, or the hand does not meet the systemic requirements, then there is a case for recording the hand as a deviation or misbid.

Presumably this was played somewhere where 4-level responses are alertable.

I think "subject to proper disclosure" means that when explained it should be clear that the hand may not meet the other parts of OB 10B4 ("rule of" 25 or 16 HCP).

I don't see why there is an inalienable right to psyche transfer responses to 1NT. The laws seem clear

Is this right? My understanding of the Orange Book (OB 5B10) is that it shouldn't be alerted if i) they have no agreement and he is going to act as if it were take-out; or ii) it is takeout. It may still be the case that this (first) double is not alertable. A South who can get their mind round the implications of the Orange Book regulations might be expected to ask whether the double is known to be takeout or [known to be] undiscussed. In the latter case, bidding 4♥ is more risky.

Apparently it a "USA thing". It seems kinda odd (quaint) to Europeans.

The laws do not mention declarer asking such a question or opponents' requirement to answer, so we can infer that the laws do not recognise such a request and no requirement to answer exists. Law 73D2 and Law 73F deal with gratuitous remarks. Law 43A1c) prohibits dummy from participating in play and explicitily "... nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer".

I don't see anything in Law 65C about Declarer's rights. It just establishes correct procedure and says explicitly that this procedure is to "permit review of the play after its completion", not for determining how many tricks have been won during play. If declarer wants to know how many tricks have been won or lost, he/she or dummy should keep track as per Law 65B 1/2. If he wants opponents to point their tricks properly, he must require a correction of each card wrongly pointed (Law 65B3).

I don't think the question is illegal unless it misleads the opponents. Dummy is not allowed to answer. Opponents are not required to answer.

Similar to the difference between Canadian English and American English (languages we must also call "English").