RMB1

The information from the withdrawn insufficient bid is authorised to all. This is what the words "Law 16D does not apply" at the end of Law 27B1(a) mean. If the opponents are damaged as a result of information from the infraction then we apply Law 27D, not Law 16 (or Law 73).

It sounds as if Law 86D may be relevant. I do not understand why the TD did not (as a first priority) prevent the board from being started in the other room.

What strength does 2♥ show?

Do we know what South intended 2♦ as?

That's enough for me to rule no action demonstrably suggested / results stands.

Some of the Orange Book is unclear because there is not unanimity on the committee that is responsible for it. Some of those different voices post here, as do others who have to operate the Orange Book regulations. But your title says 2 ethics questions: ask away. You will get more that two answers. :)

In my experience such forms mean: "It's likely that opponents are out-and-out cheats, but if no one else fills out similar forms, then maybe they get away with it." :)

I don't see any abuse. Their 2M shows length in M and may have a side suit, that is true of many who play 5-card weak twos.

Although (when called at the end of the auction) you can rule that 2♣ silences South, it does not allow you to cancel South's bids. Law 37A applies to South's 2♠ bid ("... that call and all subsequent calls stand"). So the final contract is 2♠.

You can read more opinions on this problem in BRIDGE magazine May 2011, pages 52+53.

I guess this wasn't very interesting, for all manner of reasons. I was confident that partner's 4♥ was a slam try with spades agreed, but I have to admit that that confidence may have been based on unauthorised information (partner's calls had been slow). I had wanted to bid 7♠ opposite ♠Qxxx ♥Axxxx ... but I wasn't sure if this was with the odds (needing spades 3-2 and at least no initial ruff in hearts). This is the decision I thought I would have on the third auction. I was worried about the first auction, but it did not happen. I wondered subsequently if 5♠ over 5♥ would say that I was asking about ♠Q and partner would not pass with that card (and I could still bid 7♠). Unfortunately, what I was faced with was the second auction. Perhaps I passed too quickly: assuming we must lose a spade and a diamond. More unfortunately, partner had ♠Qxxx ♥Axxxx ♦xxxx ♣-- and made 13 tricks. He had worried about which suit was trumps, but decided it was spades and then (in the heat of the moment) bid 5♠ to show ♠Q.

"Five card" suit means five, It is not ambiguous. But it might be misinformtion if a "five card majors" partnership also open 1M with six or more.

[hv=pc=n&n=sak85hkq94da2cak3&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp2d(Very%20strong)p2h(Negative)p2n(24+%20BAL)p3d(Hearts)p3hp3sp4c(Cue%20bid)p4hp4n(RKCB)p5c(1%20or%204)p5d(Queen%20ask)p5h(/5S/5NT)p?]133|200|[/hv] IMPs teams of four match, almost level at half-time. 2D was a deliberate upgrade to 24+ (no jacks). When a major is agreed: -4NT-5C-5D- 5M = not trump Q, cue = K + trump Q, 5NT = trump (no K) Can you untangle the various responses and then decide what to bid?

[hv=pc=n&s=sa96432hj8652d5c2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=ppp?]133|200[/hv] IMPed pairs. Unknown opponents and partner: all three are capable of passing on a balanced 12HCP.

The OPer told me this was from a county match featuring Norfolk (I assumed the one in England, although there is a Norfolk in Virginia, USA).

This seems increasingly common: much the same happened to me at a country congress. The offending declarer wanted to "question" my ruling of a one trick penalty, he had not gained a trick from the revoke and wanted equity.

When I decided not to enter the bidding, the hand generator did not ask for vulnerability, and the default colouring looks like "love all". If I can I will edit the original post.

When a playing director is dummy, they should wait until the play is over before attempting any rectification. Law 81C3 does not say "immediately".

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&s=sk852hkj92dkjcaqj&w=st76h8763dt52c754&n=sa43ha4dq963ct962&e=sqj9hqt5da874ck83&a=p1nx2cxppp]399|300|[/hv] [Added board number/dealer/vulnerability and approximate auction.] West plays in 2♣ doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling. I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick? It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely? There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double.

Two bridge events are effectively simultaneous if no one observed one to happen before the other. Two events can be treated as simultaneous if there was not time for either to have happened as a reaction to the other. It has been observed that the laws do not deal well with multiple infractions (by the same side): it is best to try and unwind the various infractions until we get back to something that is covered by the law and using Law 16C for other withdrawn actions. In such circumstances, I was advised some time ago to find a law that can be made to fit and apply it clearly and confidently: an appeals committee (and higher bodies) will not object. In this case, I would give East the option of accepting both bids out of rotation and the have the auction continue from East. Otherwise North's bid is cancelled and West can accept South's call out of rotation, and apply Law 31A to North. Otherwise, if neither bid out of rotation is accepted, we apply Law 31B to South's bid out of rotation: North is silenced and South can make any call at his turn, but South has unauthorised information from North's withdrawn call.

It hard enough for a TD to try and explain a player's obligations in the presence of unauthorised information, and often still harder for the player to comply. Today, towards the bottom of the field of my county's major event, North held ♠Q82 ♥Q10976 ♦943 ♣AK. South opened a weak NT and North bid 2♦, a transfer to hearts. Unfortunately, South announced "spades" and, after West had passed, she pulled 2♠ out of the bidding box. (Now the only possible announcement of 2♦ is "hearts" but EW chose not to point this out.) South realised what she had done, and attempted to change her 2♠ bid but (righly or wrongly) the TD ruled that Law 25A did not apply and so 2♠ was her bid. North did not know what to bid, they had no agreement about any calls except 2♥ after 2♦; and North certainly did not know what to bid when instructed to assume that partner knew what she was doing when she bid 2♠. He bid 2NT (presumably this is what he would have bid after 1NT=2♦=2♥) but EW thought he should have bid 3♠.

Yes, some unease. A systematic application of Law 16 suggests there is no infraction. But cyberyeti and dburn make good points: perhaps the hesitation suggests the key card response was wrong, and/or the hesitation suggests partner thinks again. We have seen before where a hesitation in the play leads to the right defence by partner. Often the hesitation does not demonstrably suggest the right play and perhaps there is no logical alternative to the right play. Nevertheless, we know that without the hesitation, the defender might have defended carelessly and misdefended; with the hesitation, the defender gives the defence sufficient thought (at the right time) and does not miss the right play. It is not clear that there has been an infraction of Law 16. In this case, is it a logical alternative to not look at your hand again and simply pass 6NT, knowing that partner is captain of the auction? Does the hesitation suggest you look at your hand again and re-count your key cards? Certainly the hesitation gives you time to do so, and therefore makes it more likely that you will do so(?) There is a case that the hesitation has prompted opener to re-count his key cards, and in doing so opener has taken advantage of the hesitation. So perhaps there has been an infraction of Law 73C, if not of Law 16. Of course there is no prescribed penalty for an infraction of Law 73C: a procedureal penalty but score stands does not seem right.

"optional" to me means "strong balanced, partner can decide to bid or pass" "takeout or penalty [partner has] to decide [which it is]" sounds like strong unbalanced, either shortage or length in their suit. Some play "takeout or penalty" of pass/correct bids: 2♦(=multi)-Pass-2♥(=P/C)-X(=hearts, or takeout of hearts) So is this double optional (balanced) or "takeout or penalty" (unbalanced)?

Not much really. Either a hand that wants to make a grand slam try but doesn't know what 5NT ... 6♥ mean, or that they will be useful, or that they will be forcing(?). Or a hand that is somewhat suitable for 6♠ or somewhat unsuitable for 6NT.

I don't see the problem in alerting and explaining your agreements: don't invent explicit agreements you don't have, don't use the word "competitive" if your opponents will not understand (but you could borrow some of the wording from the Orange Book). If you have no real understanding whether it is takeout or more competitive then say so. This way the opponents will know you are both guessing and they won't be surprised if the double is passed out when you both hold balanced hands. Once you recognise that your agreements are ill-defined then disclosure is not too difficult. The problems arise when people say they have definite agreements and their partner has bid differently.