RMB1

On the topic of whether a defender "can claim for his partner". Nothing in the laws suggests any claim is an offence: unlike law 27, where there are earlier laws requiring bids be sufficient. If play had continued for two more tricks so that South and West had two clubs each, then for East to claim "West will make a club" is accurate and proper.

Sorry for the off topic reply but I have a bridge related questions :) I want a hand-held device that would fit in an outside jacket pocket that I could use as a TD. It would have a number of documents installed: current Laws, national regulations, etc. I would want to be able to stand at the table and flick through (or quickly search) the law book, so I could read out a law to the players; just as I would with a physical law book. I need an electronic version of the regulations as they are no longer printed as booklets, and personal printouts are not as easy to handle. Is this practical with the kindle? I tried a Sony eReader in a shop but the page turning and searching seemed too slow compared with accessing a physical book.

Part one: someone should call the TD, who will establish that there has been misinformation from the failure to alert, and since West has not called after East called, East is entitled to change his call (as described in Law 21B1a). Part two: But West's question is not solely for partner's benefit, even though he knows the meaning of 2♥. West's question also has the effect of establishing that there has been an irregularity. This is his right (Law 9A1), so I do not think the question is improper.

The OP mentions England (re announcing/alerting 2♣). My reference to "with apparent intent" is from the English regulations.

Are we even sure the Pass was made: was it withdrawn "with apparent intent"? Law 25A does not use the words "mechanical error". It seems clear from the description that Pass was not his intended call, it seems very likely that he did not have an intended call at the point he displayed the Pass card. Was there a pause for thought? This is less clear. It is possible that he attempted to retract the Pass as soon as he became aware he had displayed it, without pause for thought. Does Law 25A1 prohibit pause for thought before the intended call is substituted? Or does it just require no pause for thought before the attempting to withdraw the unintended call. If the sequence of events is: [unintended call]-(no pause)-[Attempt to subsubstitute by removing unintended call]-(pause for thought)-[intended call] is that a legal change of call under Law 25A1?

I think it is clear that Pass is a logical alternative, some people just do not bid again. I do not think it is clear that 3♣ is suggested by the hesitation, partner often thinks with a weak hand, wondering whether (and how to) run.

3. (Not the worst I have ever seen, not even close.) There is no legal excuse for a split ruling and no reason for an adjustment of "Not played" when they have played the board.

There are some players who think the best use of 1♣ is to open all 13HCP+ hands. At some point, the precision/strong club players who want to play 1♣ close to, or weaker than, what is permitted stop playing a strong club and start playing [wanting to play] an amorphous club. At some point, this stops being precision and starts being something else. You can't claim something should be permitted just because people want to play it and it is like a permitted system only weaker.

Playing 1m-1M-2M-2N (or 1m-1H-2H-2S) as a relay allows 1m-1M-2M-3X as natural, non-forcing, invitational with exactly 4M. This is described in Robson and Segal and a one-time partner referred to it as "Robson" (if it needs a name).

Because pairs would agree to open all 15HCP hands and manage to find some extra distribution, suit quaility, or intermediates to justify meeting the regulation on any given hand that was questioned. "Oh, I think 87 combinations are particularly powerful" :)

I can't speak for bluejak but I don't think there are many strong club or either/or club partnerships whose agreements to open 1♣ are based on "eight clear cut tricks".

In England (EBU) we don't take away boards that have been played at one table in a match. In Europe (EBL), there was a regulation that encourages taking away boards when tables run over time, even once a board has been started. The regulation requires an assigned adjusted score based on the auction/play so far, but my impression was that this was rarely done.

There have been a number of such rulings at Brighton since the new laws came into effect (that is in August 2008 and August 2009). One example was going to be adapted for the EBU County Director's course, I don't know if it was used. I do not know it is wrong. But I have been told it is wrong (by my ultimate authority).

This was noticed when dummy went down. We gave them board 18 to play while we investigate board 17 but, of course (in hindsight), the same thing happened. I'm not sure what you are implying by your question. This was the final of open national team of four competition.

Time for me to emerge from the bushes on this topic. I don't think we know how to apply Law 86D. There was much material on this law at the EBL TD course in San Remo earlier this year, but this material was based on a WBF LC minute that was subsequently withdrawn. (I thought I got Frances to play a replacement board for the first board, which was then flat.) I tried to apply Law 86D to the second board. I was worried by the phrase "the non-offending side", what should I do if there are two? I awarded +5IMP for Frances' opponents scoring -50 against 50% +50 and 50% -420 at the other table. I gave Frances' team +3IMP as an artificial adjustment. This is how we had applied Law 86D in the past, for example at Brighton Swiss Teans. I have been told that this is the wrong approach. One approach is we should give an artificial adjusted score to both non-offending sides and the other approach is to give an assigned adjusted score to both non-offending sides (as jallerton suggests in the other thread). In the latter case, we produce a sympathetic weighting for the score at the other table (so the scores do not balance) but the net IMPs should be no more than 6IMPs: so the assigned score does not cost the rest of the field any more than awarding an artificial AVE+ to both sides. Applied to Frances' second board, the opponents get +5IMP (scored against 50% of 4S=/4S-1, which is sympathetically weighted to the opponents) and Frances' team get 0IMP (scored against 100% -50, the best they could do on the board). The net IMPs is 5, so the weighting are not overly generous. I do not know how to apply this when there are two (mutually fouled) boards where two results have been obtained, which is bluejak's case. I was consulted about that case and advised that we did not know what to do and suggested +3IMP to both sides was the only ruling we could give with any credibility. When there are two results, they might each be favourable to the same non-offending side or to two different non-offending sides. Without explicit regulation, I do not know how to combine the two assigned adjusted scores.

The only cards he can't play before he plays the ♦4 are other small diamonds. [Please use "4D" for bids and "D4" for cards.]

But the UI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 2NT, the AI says partner has forgotten the agreement concerning 3NT. It is clearer to think in terms of logical alternatives and actions suggested over alternatives by unauthorised information.

If opener has 4 diamonds opposite J109xxxx we are only missing one card, so partner has two of the top three honours.

Is that what you meant to say? I expect the irrational to be obviously irrational. If the TD ruled ten tricks because a normal line was to discard at least one diamond on the clubs, I expect a player at the table, who subsequently claims such a play is irrational, to spot that that is a play he would never make at the time. Of course "irrational" does not appear in the relevant laws/footnotes, I am assuming "irrational" is short hand for "worse than careless or inferior".

If discarding a small diamond on the clubs is irrational, why did take another player in the bar after the end of the session to point this out. :)

I like to think of it differently; that is, differently from the posters before bluejak, whose post snuck in before mine. The AI constrains the logical alternatives, the UI determines what is suggested over what. The UI suggests 4♦ over Pass; were Pass a logical alternative then 4♦ would not be allowed.

The boards rotate round the room, being passed to a (fixed) adjactent table, so each board is played at 3 or 4 tables (this was 7 board matches). There is no attempt to get the same physical boards played at the same tables in a match. It is common in England/Wales to use "Australian" assignment of matches to tables, each team has a home table and plays each match at that table and the opponent's home table. So it is impossible to ensure physical boards are played at both tables in a match because there is no knowing in advance where the pairs of tables in a match are.

It was another numbered board (17) with one sticker with number/dealer/vulnerability. It had been "converted" to board 8 by sticking a smaller (number only) sticker over the number.

Can you apply Law 86D in this situation? Do you? Should you?

Thanks for all the replies. The most useful was the reference to BBO SAYC. 1. I didn't assume Drury which is why I bid a natural 2♦ on 2. 2. I assumed 3♠ agreed ♦ and played in ♦. 3. I knew this was ambiguous but I bid 3NT with ♣AKJxxxx But the auctions are less important. Both partners said they could not play with me any more because we were playing different systems (same message twice in one day). Surely people recognise (after the fact) that many sequences are going to lead to misunderstandings - can't people lighten up a little?