RMB1

The EBU think their regulation ("no agreement" is alertable / adjust on the basis that "no agreement" is the correct explanation) is supported by the new laws. Law 75 : 2017

Whereas Law 16 [not applying] would apply if a defender says "Don't I get a trick with a spade"

All three will apply from 1st August (in time for the Summer Meeting). There will be changes to the Blue Book but they are largely unrelated to the new laws. There will be changes to the White Book mainly to ensure consistency with the new laws.

You can recover most of the four-suit transfer structure: 2S = clubs (2NT = nat invitational) 3C = diamonds: weak or strong 3D = diamonds: invitational

Even if the correction is made during the clarification period, it is still in time for the final pass by the opponents to be changed (to a double) under Law 21B1(a); so the opponents may still be in a position to take advantage of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding. [should discussion of the issues in the new laws be in Changing Laws and Regulations, until they are in force?]

With your left hand? :)

We occasionally see examples of "rulings" from Mollo's writing in these forums. Mollo was writing entertaining fiction. His writing should not be taken as a manual of how to apply the (rubber or duplicate) laws in the 1960/70/80s and are certainly not applicable to the current laws. Pompous Moi! :)

South bid 5♦ out of turn at partner's turn to call? Why isn't North forced to Pass throughout, Law 31B?

I've tried this - they still don't call me back :(

What if? A player removes the 1NT card just clear of the bidding box, but then realises that he has agreed to play a strong NT, not his usual weak NT, and he has a 14 count. The player knows Law 25 and does not ask if he can change his bid. The TD is not called and the player puts the 1NT card on the table. His partner announces it as 15-17 and invites with a 9 count. The player has AI (he knows that he has opened a strong NT on a 14-count), and UI from the announcement, as he knows his partner is inviting opposite a strong NT. He passes and game would have gone down. When asked, the player says "I forgot we were playing a strong NT when I took the card from the box but I remembered before I put the card on the table, and before partner's announcement. There was a slight hitch after the card was clear of the box while I realised the call was made and it was too late to change." Do you adjust?

A day trip into the interior with walks along the Levada: there are reasonable organished minibus trips.

You can open 1♣ and rebid 2NT. You can even open 1♣ if ♣7 was a spade. You can agree that 1♦-2♣ is GF and 2NT rebid is 12-14 or 18-19. You can play 2♥ rebid as a natural reverse or other strong hands (including 18-19 bal), with 2♠ by responder to ask. You can play 1♦-2♣ -2♦ as any weak rebid, -2♥ as 15+ natural (could be 4441), -2NT as 18-19.

Should I be describing my responses? Usually I have no agreement beyond "Lebensohl" and "slow denies" and have no agreement about why/how we would by-pass 3♣.

(sorry, perhaps the question was rhetorical) In my experience "Lebensohl" or "forces/asks me to bid 3♣". When I last said something like "asks me to bid 3♣: usually a weak hand, to play at the 3-level, but can be some awkward game-forcing hands", my partner was surprised. Robin

Some experienced players know that the revoke penalty can cost fewer tricks than the penalty card penalty. Such players do not ask partner "having none?"

I had written: I was wrong, try: 1♦ which shows 3+ ♦ can not be announced because there is no prescribed announcement.

I think EBU Blue Book 4D1 implies that all non-forcing 1♦ should be announced. It is possible that EBU Blue Book 4H2(b) should be qualified to refer to canape 1M opening, or should say "alert or announce"

If 1C/1D is forcing it is alerted. If 1C/1D is non-forcing and does not show 3+ cards, then it is announced "could be two", "could be one", "could be none". The announcement implies an alert, opponents have to ask if they want to know if "could be two" may have 4 diamonds, 5 diamonds, 5 card major. (Or they could find out at the start of the round.)

You don't think we should tell players about changes to the law book? Especially those changes that change what is legal procedure? I expect some NBOs will make some effort to inform their members.

26, 27, 30, 31, 32

All the club check-back bids and the final diamond bids.

The lead restrictions would still apply when South first got on lead, no?

It appears from OP that West saw South call before North.

Strong option includes a strong hand with clubs conforming to ER25 7C1(a) and the non-strong option is a single-suiter which is not clubs, as in 7C1(b)(iv) The non-strong option could certainly be an intermediate hand with 6+ suit, and the strong option could include strong hands with suits other than clubs; with no gap between the non-strong single-suiter and the strong single-suiters if the suit is not clubs.

I think this forum is about directing events on BBO. This post is about directing F2F bridge and should be in one of the IBLF forums.