RMB1

+1

Glyn Liggins

Checking the legality of systems in much easier under many other regulatory authorities where only opening bids and overcalls are subject to regulation.

In Kent (England), the double is alertable if the agreement is penalties (EBU Blue Book 4B2(a)) but the double is also alertable if they do not know if it is penalties (EBU Blue Book 2D2: "Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable he must alert.")

I was wrong about 1NT. At some point since I had to rule on HUM regulations, the regulations have changed. HUM regulations now refer to "opening bids at the one level" (not, for example, "opening suit bids at the one level"). So 1NT opening bids are restricted by WBF system policy.

In my world if i open a weak NT and they double and partner bids, I pass even if I have a 5cd major. I dont make constructive bids agreeing partner's suit so we can be doibled at the three level. In most partnerships where this sequence occurs, when 2D is intended as diamonds, 2H shows a lack of partnership agreement.

The motivation was that it is very common to play the same new suit responses over a Pass or a Double, so the same regulation should treat the expectation of forcing/non-forcing the same in both sequences. Yes, WJS are popular but they are common in an uncontested auction, and those were alertable before the change.

Assuming 2♠ is NF, it alertable: BB 4H2(c)(3)

(It would help if the bidding diagram was labelled "NESW" - even better if West was first.) North does not have unauthorised information when he passes after 5NT. We know that North did not know what 4NT was and North was free to guess what 5NT is. South does have unauthorised information and there are possible alternative calls, depending on how South might interpret 5♣. Even opposite a quantitative 4NT, 5♣ could be 0 aces, or it could be natural offering 5♣ or 6♣ as alternatives to 5NT/6NT. The "don't know" answer makes some meanings of 5♣ less likely and makes the consequences of some calls by South more dangerous. 5NT is suggested by the unauthorised information as it (appears) to clarify the intended natural meaning of 4NT. It is possible that Pass is a logical alternative (if 5♣ is natural we could play there) or 5♠ (old fashioned blackwood continuation, to sign off in 5NT). We would need to know South's hand and ultimately poll South's peers. No. Not knowing your system does not mean you can use unauthorised information.

If the insufficient 2♣ was intended as natural, and is replaced by Pass, does Law 27B1(b) apply? That is, if the auction becomes 1D(2C)X(P)P(bid) can doubler bid again.

It is possible to rule that North's actions suggest that there is a partnership understanding that 3♣ might not be artificial; this gives 3♣ a multi-way meaning two-suited without clubs or one-suited with clubs; this understanding is not a permitted agreement and in England we award AVE-/AVE+. But it appears that every player of the table understood that 3♠ was natural and therefore that 3♣ may not have spades. I would suggest that North's knowledge that South may not have ♠+♦ was not based on any (special) partnership understanding and there is no infraction.

> It is not considered good practice to cancel a board after the players have started to play it. If it is known that a TD can cancel a board once started, it leaves open that the possibility that once a player knows he is getting a bad board, they will prolong play or delay completion of the board until the TD cancels the board and the player escapes their bad score.

The power to cancel or postpone play of a board is given by Law 81C1: It is not considered good practice to cancel a board after the players have started to play it.

The defender is thinking about whether to play Q from Qx to show a higher-ranking suit??

From WBF LC minutes There are two WBFLC minutes re Law 50E, the first is from 1998-1-Lille item 3, which predates the current Law 50E. The second is from 2008-Beijing item 3. The final sentence is the killer: it appears to imply that the interpretation in the 1998 minute still applies despite the change in the law.

The EBU L&E committee also tried to construct an example of its understanding of Law 50E3, in EBU White Book 2006, 8.50.2

If the adjustment is under Law 50E3 then this is not a "UI" law and it is possible to give a weighted ruling that includes a proportion of the table result. Law 50E3 does not say that using the information conveyed by the the exposed card is illegal.

In practice this is usually dealt with by warning the player concerned and (if it is repeated) banning them from playing from such events at that club. The TD may award an adjusted score on the board (usually AVE-/AVE+). There is usually no law/regulation supporting such action - it is just the way such events are run.

I can think of a small island off the coast of Europe that would prefer to be continent of its own.

Fascinating as this discussion might be, can we stop discussing the technical merits of puppet stayman responses in a "simple" rulings topic on disclosure. Please.

link On Bridge Winners : Bidding Problem : see all

Yes. But in determining LAs we don't tell them that the double was slow. We can tell them that partner is weaker than the pollee.

The BBC report a paper which says that support for "traditional values" is better correlated with voting leave than age/education/wealth. Where "traditional values" is typified by support for the death penalty and flogging.

If dummy asked "which heart?" because dummy thought it was obvious that declarer wanted to play the queen, then this is evidence that declarer's intention was to play ♥Q, that is it is evidence that "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible".

Teams have a home table (table number = team number) and NS play at that table throughout. The assignments just need to tell you the number of the opponents and that is the (table) number where EW play. With bridgemates: at the start of the match the bridgemate displays the opponents number (as the number of EW who will play at this table) so the EW know where to play. It is possible that matches are played at adjacent tables but when every table is playing the same boards, this is not much of an issue.