RMB1

In some circles, you could alert "no explicit agreement about this sequence, our general agreement is take-out, but there comes a point at which it is more competitive or even optional". In other circles, opponents will assume that that quote describes an unalertable "takeout" double. :)

Difficult to know without knowing the (degree of) truth of the hypothesis (the first bit). Regardless of the meaning of "likely" in isolation, "at all likely" means "possible".

Ask E/W what infraction has occurred and how they have been damaged.

Where I learnt backgammon (at the feet of John Conway), we had a second hexahedral cube for the next six powers of 2.

EBU Appeal form The second half of page 2 deals with unauthorised information rulings and has "steps" A,B,C,D,E; then on page 4, there is box "The Committee disagrees with the following on page two (please tick and give details) B C D E"

Of course an appeals committee can overturn a UI ruling. The EBU appeals form invites the committee to says at which point in a UI ruling it disagrees with the original ruling. BUT the laws, the TD, and the AC will all assume that you (or your peers) thought 3♣ was natural when you bid it and will rule against you.

I think so. The appropriately named user "wank" used the phrase "playing with a mirror" in the topic "Wuss" recently, which avoids the double ententre.

Much the same: Pass = to play if overcaller's suit is clubs XX = asks overcaller to bid his longest suit, but 2♥ with clubs 2♦ = to play if overcaller's suit is diamonds

I (as a TD) always treat this as a request to agree the facts in front of the TD and say "Can we agree the facts, ...". If they use the phrase "reserve their rights", I do not refer to it subsequently. The only point at which to educate people about "reserving their rights" is when they use it (not enough player read these forums/blogs/etc.). Unfortunately, you can only do this if they call the TD now and this is not a good time because they will already be upset if the opponents have potentially infracted. If the TD says "You can't reserve your rights, because that is something you do instead of calling the TD" the player will think you are trying to deny him his rights. So the conclusion is that I just ignore the phrase if players use it.

My experience from people-based testing made me add some spurious options. :)

[hv=pc=n&w=sa9872hj87da6ct96&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1hp1sp2hp?]133|200[/hv] IMPs (Swiss Teams, 8 board matches, last match, table 1). If it mattters: playing Acol, weak NT, 4 card majors, "majors first". Whatever, partner has shown a minimum opener with 6 hearts, and 10HCP would be enough to open 1H with a 6 card suit. What I did was wrong: I expect to be told it was obviously wrong. :( Do the right thing and you win enough IMPs to get the silverware.

The problem with this approach is that the unintended call may not be a logical alternative (as here). Despite the unauthorised information, there may be no logical alternative to making the intended call, so Law 16 does not help those who want to prevent the change.

I was consulted by phone three times that evening. The first one was at tea time. The second was in the middle of the evening and I must have sounded groggy because he apologised for ringing so late. The last was this ruling, which kicked off after the match had finished. I was rung two hours after the previous ruling but this was someone who rings me regularly and there was no apology before ploughing into the facts of the case. :)

Sorry. The TD who took the ruling told me both sides were at fault. I got the impression (from what the TD told me) that the 12/14 belonged to one side, so that team was (clearly) at fault for muddling the cards when returning them to the board.

I don't understand this. Did not two players at the table the board was first played put 12/14 cards back in the board? Was the board in this state passed to the other room? Did the hand with 14 cards call before the hand with 12 cards found he only had 12?

This is an illegal (Reveley) ruling. Pass is a logical alternative to 5♣ and all other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass. So West was required by Law 16 to Pass and we must rule on the basis that 5♣ is replaced by Pass. This ends the auction, so the only weighted outcomes we might consider are the possible results of playing in 4♥. Weighted ruling come from Law 12, which applies after actions have been disallowed by Law 16. Law 16 does not allow for actions influenced by unauthorised actions to occur some fraction of the time. If, on a different hand, East bid a disallowed 5♣ over 4♥ by North, then we may allow some proportion of the result of West passing or bidding 5♣ when 4♥ comes round to him.

The two TDs who consulted on the ruling dismissed Law 86D. We considered both sides as offending* and discussions of Law 86D last year have lead us to the conclusion that we should only try to apply it when there is one offending side (and one non-offending side). *one side for returning the wrong cards to the board, the other side for miscounting.

I agree with the AC. If there is an identifiable hole in your system then you have an implicit agreement that hands in the hole have to make a call that the system does not cover. Your implicit agreement for any call = systemic agreement + any hole hand. This is disclosable, even if the hole has not been identified before.

There are some international players and some players I have played with* who have passed 1C with eight spades. [* These are not mutually exclusive groups: but I don't think any of the internationals I have played with would bid this way.] Nevertheless, you may know that partner is not such a player (and it may be that your peers know that too). So it may be that even if you "seriously consider" that partner might have bid 4S knowing the system, noone would actually pass (playing with this partner, or this class of partner). In which case, Pass is not a logical alternative and you can bid something.

The director should proceed with care, with primary reference to Law 27. Law 27B1a tells us that if (the insufficient) 1H is incontrovertibly not artificial [quite possible] and a replacement bid of 2H is incontrovertibly not artificial [not very likely] then offender can bid 2H and opener will not be silenced. Law 27B1b tells us that if offender makes a bid/pass/double that shows the sames as (or is more precise than) 1H then that call will not silence opener. Law 27B2 tells us that if offender make another bid/pass then opener is silenced. Law 27B3 tells us that offender can not double unless it shows the sames as (or is more precise than) 1H. To apply the law, the TD needs to understanding the meaning of 1H [probably the same as 1C-(P)-1H, but may be the same as an opening 1H] and understand the meaning of calls after 1C-(1H)-?. All this should have been explained to partner before the non-acceptence of the insufficient bid

I assume that 3♣ (Lebensohl) for South was natural and forcing. Why did North not bid more than 3♦ with a maximum with ♦ support? The reasons for bidding 3NT are a bit feable, if he was going to punt 3NT he could do so a round earlier. I think 3NT is suggested over stopper showing/asking bids because if you haven't got a spade stopper then North will try and play in diamonds not clubs. Bidding 3NT means you will play in a normal contract - even if it is off the spade suit. I think one of 3♥ (showing) or 3♠ (asking) is a logical alternative, having started with 3♣. So I adjust to an auction spiraling out of control when there is no spade stop and NS contest which minor to play in. 5DX-2 (N)

Some people invert the obvious meaning of Pass/Double when opponents bid their suit, so !H-3C(WJO)-4C(artifical slam try)-X says don't lead clubs and 1H-3C-4C-P says do lead clubs. This latter sequence is a lead-directing Pass. Some play think that to double a splinter to ask for the lead of that suit is pointless, so they play it as asking for a lead of another specified suit, such as the suit above, so 1H-P-4C(splinter)-X asks for a diamond lead. This a lead-directing double asking for a suit other than the suit doubled. If people alert bids above 3NT out of malice (because they don't like the regulation) they should be fined and there fines should escalate until they stop. On the other hand, if people alert bids above 3NT because it takes them 5+ years to get used to a change in regulation they deserve sympathy not penalty. If people alert bid above 3NT because it helps their bidding then they should be fined and any use of the unauthorised information from the alerts should lead to an adjusted score.

Thank goodness. Especially if that bid is 3NT now.

There are two different answers: one for how a club TD should deal with this position when it occurs at another table; and another for how a playing TD should deal with this position when he is one of the players, and there is no one else available to give a ruling. What should happen if the hesitation is not agreed on? My partner didn't think he hesitated either. As a TD at any level you have to listen to both sides and decide. "I had to think" is a hesitation; "I didn't notice" does mean there was or wasn't. As a last resort, at the end of the session, you may look at alledged hesitators hand to see if it has a problem and at alledged hesitators bidding to see if it appears to have been as a result of hesitation. As a playing TD you just accept that your side hesitated. Was I right in saying when asked to decide that I'd look at the score later to see if anything unusual happened here and I would consider adjusting it if our result was unusual? As a club TD (whether it is at your table or not) do not try and decide on adjusting score until play is over and you can talk to the players again and to others. At the time you just need to agree the facts and form an opinion where the facts are disputed. What things should I be trying to determine in order to decide whether the score needed to be corrected later? Was there a hesitation? Are there logical alternatives to the action of hesitator's partner? Did the hesitation suggest the action taken over the alternatives? Were the opponents damaged? Given my partner and I had an agreement (non-written), is it proper for me to bid (as distinct from the suggestion I should have passed)? Is there no logical alternative given we do have an agreement on this, and hence bidding is "required"? As a club TD you will take any statements about such agreements with a degree of scepticism. In general, you will assume that a pairs un-writen agreements are the same as their peers (other players of the same standard at the club). As a TD playing at the table you should just assume that Pass is a logical alternative. Would bidding on to 4♥ with a hand passed in at 2♥ be considered reckless or irrational? As a club TD, you will very rarely conclude that any action is a "serious error, wild or gambling", which is the standard required to deny redress for the non offenders. So much odd stuff goes on at club level, and taking a wild or gambling action, because you may get an adjustment if it fails, is a bit of a long shot at club level :). If they are better players than you, you are going to need considerable support from other players (see if they shudder when you tell them about the suspect action) to label their action as reckless or the like. In general, at club level, I would concentrate on making the right adjustment and not on denying redress to non-offenders. Is there anything else to consider from this? You have to make sure that the hesitation suggests the action chosen at the table. As a rule of thumb, slow bids that may be passed suggest partner bids, slow doubles suggest bidding, slow passes suggest doing something (not passing) and suggest doubling over bidding (because if he was thinking of bidding, the hesitator can always make his bid over the double). As a TD playing at the table you should just take your lumps: rule on the basis that there was a hesitation, that Pass was a logical alternative, and that Pass is suggested over action. If you think you have been done by opponents taking advantage of your position, you can appeal your own decision (the appeal is made by you, as a player, of the decision made by you, as a TD).

I think they are. It is often difficult to rule on unfamiliar bidding methods (e.g. fourth suit natural): although the perpetrators may usually land on their feet, they don't really have any clear understandings. Of course, when this occurs in a UI ruling, there will always be suspicion that endemic use of UI is what helps them to land on their feet in the absence of clear undertstandings.