RMB1

to put it bluntly, the people you were playing against evidently weren't as high level as you think. everyone even vaguely near the top in the uk (and i expect everywhere else) plays it and have done for the past 20 years He doesn't say which 15 years :) could be 1970-1985. But in the last 20 years RKCB has been the fashion amongst the top club players in the south of England, with 50% or so playing 40/31.

As described: yes. If it was a mechanical error and he attempted to change (=said 2♠ wasn't the intendend bid) as soon as he knew that he had 2♠ then Law 25A applies. The fact that an alert or announcement (or lack of the same) drew the player's attention to what he had actually bid does not preclude the application of Law 25A. It is not an illegal use of UI from the alert or announcement to attempt to change the call.

You used UI in the topic description. I do not think Law 16 makes a distinction between UI and EI.

Which irregularity has been incorrectly rectified? Sorry "Law 16A3"

But it was not this one; it was just a coincidence that the underlead also worked here. How would you rule if the board on which he received UI was a ) one he had already played b ) one he was never due to play because of the movement? And if you would adjust, under which Law? I am not sure I understand the phrase "the board on which he received UI"? I presume this means the board concerning which he received UI, the board which the UI is related to. If the board which the UI related to was one he had already played or one he was never due to play but he tried to apply the UI to another board that he was playing and it was sucessful then I would adjust. Law 12A3 is unequivocal. If two East's had played the two boards and both made the same remark. West only hears one of the remarks and plays one of the two boards and makes the successful play. Do we adjust if West said he overheard one East but not if he overheard the other East. As far as I can see the information West received was the same.

He did have UI: specifically on a board, probably one in play in this room in this session, an underlead of ♣AKQJx was the only lead to defeat the contract. He is not allowed to use that information on any hand, unless or until the TD has ruled under Law 16C.

I agree with the first sentence, but I would argue that for him to have committed an infraction he has to have received information about the board he is playing, in which case any penalty clearly applies to that board, or about a board he is due to play, in which case the penalty is applied to that board. ... I think it would be illegal for the player to lead small from AKQJx on every board in the session in the hope that this was the board that the underlead works. The laws do not allow the use of unauthorised information to suggest a call or play (Law 16A3). There is no restriction in Law 16A as to the source or relevance of the unauthorised information. There is no penalty defined in Law 16A3, but the lead of the small club on the first board was against that law. The player should have notified the TD when he heard the remark, when he picked up ♣AKQJx and knew the information might be relevant, and when he was on lead (and at all points in between). Instead he made a play that was based on extraneous information in an attempt to gain - he hoped to see the contract defeated, even if he did not expect the score to stand.

If the final form of scoring is conversion to victory points then I would need to decide between the different averages for the boards and the size of the fine.

This is the only part of your post with which I might take issue. I cannot find justification in the laws for awarding an adjusted score, or artificial score, on this board, merely because of the coincidence of West's holding in clubs. Perhaps it is not unplayable, in the sense of Law 16C, but nevertheless I think we can adjust. Law 16C1 "the director should be notified". Introduction: ' "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction ...)'. Definitions: "Irregularity – a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." West's failure to notify the TD is an irregularity and Law 23 should be considered. Law 23 says "rub of the green" does not apply if the offender "could have known". If the irregularity is a failure to do something, then is the "time of his irregularity" any time after the original opportunity? By continuing to not notify the TD, West ensured he could lead a small club and at that time he was aware that this could damage the non-offending side (he thought he knew a small club was the only way to defeat the contract). So the TD can award an adjusted score.

I fine East who made the overheard remark. I fine West who overheard the remark and did not notify the TD. To instead use the information and own up later is highly improper even if he intends to call the TD, and he did not intend to gain. We only have his word that he was going to call the TD - there was time for someone to ask why he underlead AKQJx. If he had been notified earlier, the TD could have allowed West to play both boards and awarded an adjusted score. It does not say whether West can use the information during the boards. It is tempting, when the TD finds there are two AKQJx's to tell West to ignore the UI because it may not be helpful. Also, if West were the only one to hear the remark, the TD could switch EW so East on lead with AKQJx on both hands. The overheard remarks have made the second board unplayable, and the TD would normally adjust to AVE+/AVE+. The first board is unplayable due to a combination of the overheard remark and West not notifying the TD. West is at least partially at fault, so an artificial AVE+/AVE would be appropriate. I would award NS AVE+ on both boards. I would award AVE= to EW on both boards and an EBU standard fine of 10% top (=difference between AVE+ and AVE=). The same effect would be to award AVE+ + AVE= + a fine of twice the standard amount.

You can imagine the scene: some hotel in the English Midlands, it is Saturday night at some EBU national competition. The session is due to finish at 23:30 but some players are late. Noone can consume alcohol until all play for the day is completed. The event continues tomorrow, so no one can drink after midnight (because play for tomorrow will not have finished until that evening). David Burn has finished play an hour ago and is waiting patiently (!) at the bar in the next room but at Robson's table there are still two boards to finish. The TD is hovering (he wants a drink too) and some sort of "bush telegraph" is evolving to relay the moment of the last card being played, from the playing room to the bar. The atmosphere in the playing room, and in bar, is getting edgy, as play again grinds to halt at the remaining table ...

But this is easy under the current laws: do not accept the lead out of turn, the lead reverts to South, make no lead restriction on South (arising from North's penalty card, and South must lead the ♦K penalty card.

Can someone give a fuller description of the leads that draws out their "dual meaning". Or is the dual meaning because they play non-standard leads with non-standard signals. So the combination of lead and signal on that lead is dual meaning? But is that any more dual meaning than Ace for attitude, King for count?

If the Roman leads are that non-honour even card shows a lead from a bad suit and a non-honour odd card shows a lead from a good suit (with an honour, say); then how is this more "dual meaning" than fourth highest non-honour shows a good suit and second highest non-honour shows a bad suit ?

1) Certainly NS have a case. 2) If West peers would "all" interpret 2NT as "a wheel has come off" then the UI does not suggest one three-level bid over another. 3) A TD who is "out of his depth" should consult, by telephone if necessary. 4) I am not surprised that someone doubled. 5) Unfortunate, especially given (3).

Gnasher, let me be the one to answer the original question "no". If opener can have a hand that would make a marginal invitation with 3♠ if 3♠ were invitational, would bid 3♠ preemptively if 3♠ is not invitational, and would compete to 4♠ (if partner hasn't doubled, say). Then, with such a hand, opener would bid 3♠ (and then 4♠) but we would not know if he knew 3♠ was not invitational and so he appears to have used UI from the explanation of 3♠. In this case, it is possible that there would be a ruling against opener. When opener had known their agreements all along (for instance, when he bid 3♠) such a ruling is (to say the least) unfortunate.

South opens 1NT, West and North pass and East doubles; South and West pass, North redoubles and East bid 2♥. West says "I should have alerted the Double". The TD is called, the Double is explained as a single-suiter. North changes his Redouble to Pass (as per Law 21B1a). How do we apply Law 21B2? Must East change 2♥? Can he change 2♥ to nothing? Assume on the auction (1NT)P(P)X(P)P(P) that there are logical alternatives to a heart lead from West. Can West lead a heart? Is it a breach of Law 16B? If West lead a heart that damages NS, does the TD adjust at the end of the hand?

I disagree. LHO is subject to lead restriction because RHO has a major penalty card. If the PCs are in the same suit and declarer forbids the lead of RHO's suit OR if the PCs are in different suit and declarer requires the lead of RHO's suit THEN LHO does not lead his faced card (see L50D1b quoted upthread). Instead he complies with the lead restriction and his faced card remains a MPC (but RHO picks up his faced card).

The real complication when both defenders have major penalty cards is how to deal with the lead penalties when either defender is on lead. Once the lead to each trick has been made then the defenders must play their major penalty card if legal. When a defender is on lead and both defenders have one major penalty card each then declarer has three options: 1. Make no lead penalty: defender on lead leads his penalty card, other penalty card remains as a penalty card. 2./3. Require/Forbid the lead of the suit of the other defender's penalty card, the other defender's penalty card is picked up and restored to hand and is no longer a penalty card. In one of 2. or 3. (depending on whether the two penalty cards are in the same or different suits) the defender on lead will have to lead his penalty card because it complies with the lead penalty. This case is strictly more lenient on the defence than option 1. In the other case, the defender has to comply with the lead penalty and does not play the penalty card, which remains a penalty card. (Law 50D1b: The obligation to follow suit or to comply with a lead or play restriction takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, ...)

I can not find this expectation in the EBU regulations. (I looked before the previous post and I looked again before this post. B)) The White Book describes the "mandated ten seconds" as "free thinking time". The view is that partner of the jump bidder is entitled to ten seconds thinking time (usually the time while next to call is pausing) without generating unauthorised information. If next to call does not pause, partner is still entitled to the thinking time. The recommended procedure is that the jump bidder keeps the stop card out for the "ten seconds" even if the next player calls during that time. If the next player calls while the stop card is displayed, partner waits for the stop card to be removed before calling. PeterE: What is the German regulation about picking up the stop card if the next player calls before the stop card is picked up?

In England (EBU) the stopper's partner is expected to complete the 10 second wait if stopper's LHO takes less than the 10 seconds; but there is no UI from stopper's partner calling sooner.

Take a look at Law 27D. ... This is where pran indicated that Law 27D talked about UI. I asked where does information become UI at the end of the hand, and pran said to look at Law 27; seems a pretty clear indication to me.

Whatever Law 27D says, it does not say that the information from the insufficient bid becomes unauthorised after the play of the hand. Nor does it say the offender's partner retrospectively may not have chosen from logical alternatives suggested over another by the information from the insufficient bid.

The simple answer is lack of communication. A case of "cockup, not consipracy". I was not aware that the TD i/c white section had warned this pair on Friday evening (I was in that section, but I was only the scorer). The rulings occured in the red section the following evening. Both boards were brought to one TD at the same time and he ruled on them, probably unaware of the earlier warning. There is no formal mechanism for carrying forward procedural warnings from session to session. When the non-offender spoke to me on Sunday morning, we were able to identify the opponents as the pair that had been warned earlier. But all I did was ensure that there was (going to be) a ruling on the two boards from Saturday evening. The TD ruled on the facts he had, and chose to bring both rulings to the attention of the AC. Even if he came to know of the earlier warning, there were no details of the potential offences that he could present to the AC. I think it is for the AC to decide if evidence from one board is relevant to ruling on another board, probably on a case-by-case basis. Was it the TD or the non-offending side that brought up the other board? I now have a copy of the appeals form and there is only passing mention of another board.

I can see why this isn't in Simple Rulings. Unlike PeterE and pran, I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2. So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI. What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information. How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised? Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D? Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn.