RMB1

Is this line of argument specific to Law 27 or a general point about whether the laws are available authorised information? Are you suggesting we should not read Law 31A2 before giving a non offender the option of accepting a bid out of rotation, or not reading Law 50C or Law 50D to a non offender before playing on once there is a penalty card?

This is not a psyche or HUM or Brown Sticker. The tourney rules needed to say something like "no opening 4M on a 7 card suit and/or <5 HCP" before this is illegal.

If the declarer's intention to play ♠2 was incontrovertible (it sounds as if it was) then it is played. Otherwise declarer can choose which deuce to play. (Law 46B) Declarer could not play ♠K, the "deuce" was not an unintended designatation (Law 45B4b).

I am sure there is not a consistent answer, but here goes: South will have the option to accept 1♥ in which case the auction continues, otherwise the 1♥ bid is cancelled and East calls. I rule that 1♥ and 2♥ are not artificial, so if East bids 2♥ the auction continues; if East makes another call that means the same, or is more precise than, 1♥ then the auction continues, West is not silenced. Otherwise if East passes or bids then West is silenced for the rest of the auction. So it is now up to South whether to accept 1♥. [South does not accept.] If you bid 2♥ or a call with the same or more precise meaning than 1♥ then partner will not be silenced. If you make another call your partner will be silenced for the rest of the auction; you cannot double unless that has the same or more precise meaning than 1♥. [East calls] The auction continues, West is not silenced. If North/South think they have been damaged by assistance gained through the infraction, or that I was wrong in my ruling please call me back at the end of the hand. [OR] West is silenced for the rest of the auction. There may be lead penalties and if North/South think they have been damaged by East silencing partner, please call me back at the end of the hand.

We know the laws are imperfect and sometimes appear contradictory and certainly contain redundancy. Therefore, it is wrong to argue that one law means X because if it meant Y some other law would be unnecessary. The laws do not say that you are entitled to authorised information, only that if you gain knowledge of the authorised information you may use it. You are not entitled to see opponents cards but if you do (accidently) that information is authorised and you can use it. You can use knowledge of your system but specifically denied being reminded of it. I am sure that the laws, scoring table and VP scales are authorised. I am not sure you are entitled to be reminded of them except where the law specifically allows: for example, in the options and consequences following an irregularity.

Good question. For no obvious reason, there is an established interpretation to read the law as if it said "... but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought following his realisation that he had not made his intended call. So a possible scenario is: the player makes an unintended call but does not look at the call he has put on the table; LHO calls; the player looks down, realises he has not made his intended call, and changes for his intended call (without pause for thought from the moment of realisation). !

David does. :) I downloaded a copy from the EBU website at Brighton but David said it was not the latest version. There is a change relating to tournament organisers and (affiliated) EBU clubs. I have felt forced to drag around my laptop to all EBU events so I can refer to the (nearly) latest Orange and White books. Hence the posts elsewhere on BBF about Kindles.

My thoughts? *******s :D Inadvertent designation does not apply to cards played, only to cards named. Mechanical error does not apply to cards played deliberately, only dropped. Declarer does not have penalty cards. If the card was removed from declarer's hand and placed on the table and released, it is played. If declarer attempts to substitute another card that card is replaced in declarer's hand and the original card is the card played to the trick.

Is it naive to suggest that declarer should get on with playing the hand and give the bridgemate to dummy to enter the previous results?

I think that would be Andrew Robson who teaches at his club in London and tours other clubs around the country giving seminars. His club website describes him as "Britain's No 1 bridge player teacher".

I'm afraid this happens frequently. A NS player hears that slam makes on the next board but does not call the TD, he presumes that EW have heard this too. EW bid to slam and now the NS player calls the TD, "we overheard that 6NT makes on this hand, and now East has jumped to 6NT". I ask why no one called the TD earlier. If EW claim they did not overhear the remark about slam making then I believe them and rule that the result stands. If I can, I ask NS when they were going to call the TD if the making slam was their way.

Why? Because if South thought it was their agreement the TD is likely to rule that they have that agreement (especially given Law 21B1). By saying something at the end of the auction, South avoids some of the affects of misinformation in the auction, and completely avoids damage from misinformation in the play.

rec.games.bridge newsnet group is one of the earliest bridge forums on the internet. Recently the total posts to RGB (starting in the early 1990s) was overtaken by the total posts to BBF (which has been going less than half that time).

I now have more facts: in answer to my parenthetical question "who does?", it appears someone does (dburn). If I thought that NS might be comparable in choice of system with dburn then I would be more likely to rule misinformation.

Was there an attempt to change the 1♦ without pause for thought? I'm sure the OP would have mentioned it. So, no, its not a Law 25A case.

I would investigate and I may rule misinformation. But I expect I would rule that NS don't have a agreement that 2♥ is a transfer (who does?) and rule misbid not misinformation, result stands.

Away from the table, I ask West what he meant with 1♦. I image he will tells that he intended to transfer to ♥. (I would not ask to see, or look at, his hand.) I tell him that a bid that shows hearts will not silence partner. I return to the table and say that Law 27B1 does not apply but Law 27B2 may apply without telling the table the intended meaning of 1♦. At this point I give North the option of accepting 1♦. When he does not accept, West withdraws 1♦ and makes a legal call. If it is 2♦, I explain that East is not silenced and the auction continues. I mention Law 27D and ask to be recalled if NS feel damaged. P.S. I do not think this is a practical procedure.

Only if the cards are visible once the hand has started. If a player sees opponents cards before anyone has called, including during the deal (how quaint), then the TD should be called. Preferably the player who sees the card should call the TD even if he is a pro and owes his livelihood to otherwise squeezing every advange that the laws or the clumsiness of the opponents allows him. If the card is seen during the deal, then Law 6D1 says there is a redeal, otherwise the TD can use Law 16C2 and Law 6D3 to cancel the board and have a redeal. The information from the opponents card is extraneous, NOT authorised.

Sorry. I understood "measure" as "weigh" (as shown on the scales beneath). You mean "measure" as "indicate" (for the weight of the those above).

> Well? Well, I think you are wrong. Imagine 17 scales in a box (of negligible mass), being weighed on another scale. The bottom scale measures the weight of the 17 scales. Now add another scale to the box, the bottom scale now measures the weight of the 18 scales, the last scale has contribute its full "weight" to the reading of the scale. Now if we rearrange the top 18 scales so they are each weighing each other in a pile (with the first one sitting on the bottom scale) this does not change their mass, so it does not change the weight shown on the bottom scale. In other words, the interal forces in the collection of the top 18 scales (e.g. tension in the balance springs) does not affect the external force (weight) required to support the 18 scales as a totality.

Traditionally strong club was Blue in WBF. I always assumed designating the level as "blue" was a sop to the Italians' (blue club, etc.)

Ask a pig.

When we use the phrase "mechanical error" (for bidding boxes) what do we mean? Do we mean anything different than "took an unintended call out of the bidding box"?

The documents I want are all available from the EBU website as PDF, which is searchable. I guess I can also process the PDF to add bookmarks, etc. (I've done it before at $work, and I've got more time now.)

Thanks. Unfortunately, the standard EBU TD jacket has outside pockets that are 6in (15.24cm) wide. They will just take an A5 printed booklet (14.85cm) and will comfortably take the EBU version of 1997 Laws (13cm wide) and the 2007 Laws (slightly narrower at 12.5cm). But the won't fit an iPad which is almost 7 and a half inches (19cm), according to various sources (including http://www.apple.com/ipad). :(