RMB1

As a TD, I have to determine whether the "tempo" had a demonstrable bridge reason. That is what most of the discussion has been about. If there is a demonstrable bridge reason to think then there is no infraction and no adjustment. If there is no demonstrable bridge reason, the TD must determine if an opponent drew a false inference and was damaged. (Not the case here because the opponents found the par contract.) The TD must also determine whether the offender could have known that the hesitation could work to his advantage. (This will usually be the case if a slow Pass in competition suggests values the passer does not have.)

I think I know the answers to these questions. B) Playing online with a partner who is "Advanced", "Expert" or "Private" and your only agreements are 5cM, strong NT. Is P-1H-2C Drury? Is P-1H-2D-3S Natural? Is (1C)-P-(1S)-1NT Natural?

I do not think there is misinformation from failure to alert. I do not think the NS agreement is (1♦)-2♣ = both majors. I would try to determine whether there are logical alternatives to 3♠: calls that might be considered are Pass, 3♦ (equal length in M?), 3♥ (better M), 4♣ (raise of natural, constructive 3♣). The UI from the failure to alert 2♣ suggests trying to play in a major and not playing in clubs; so it suggests 3M over 3♦, 3♦ over Pass, and Pass over 4♣. I suspect Pass is a logical alternative and adjustment to 6 or 7 tricks in 3♣.

I disagree with the last step: [3a] If so, the score should be adjusted for the offending side only.* [3b] If not, the score should be adjusted for both sides. * This is a simplification of the implementation of Law 12C1b when all the damage is due to the serious error or wild or gambling action.

That explains why England's second goal against Germany did not count. :( How about awarding two penalties for a deliberate handball in the "six yard" box: that would remove the incentive but still only award goals for balls that go in the goal.

Apologies in advance for what seems to be a rant. I am sure that jallerton and VixTD are being genuine but they seem blissfully unaware of how huge swathes of the (English/Welsh) bridge population bid. After 1C-(1D) you can't pass if you have values to respond to 1C, you can bid 1NT with a 4cM because uncontested 1C-1NT denies 4cM, you can't bid 1M because that shows 5; and all because what you do with a 4cM is make a negative double. What does opener do on 1C-(1D)-X-(2D) without a certain fit? - he guesses like he does in many contested auctions. Surely you have seen players bid like this? One solution is for opener to pass (or double) slowly - but that's a subject for another thread. These are the same players who never raise partner's (1 or 2 suited) preempts to game with a 10 or 11 card fit. They don't know what they're doing but they do know to make takeout doubles with a four card major, even if they can't handle further competition.

I would ask North why he bid 1♠ with a view to deciding whether 1♠ was in accordance with their partnership agreement, which would be illegal. I would ask South why he bid 5♠ rather than double. As it stands, Pass is not a logical alternative for South and the slow Pass does not suggest 5♠ over double. However, I would be concerned that something in North/South's experience or South's demeanor allowed North to choose 5♠ following South's illegal/psychic/deviant 1♠ and slow Pass. Assuming similar procedures to the EBU, I would make a record of the hand.

Does anyone else want to give West a procedural penalty/fine? He asks his partner to leave the table, which he is not entitled to do. He corrects partners explanation as a defender before the end of the play, which is at the wrong time. He offers an alternative explanation that could mislead the opponents because it does not match his hand (presumably West claims both he and East coincidentally "forgot" their agreement about protective 1NT overcalls). I don't believe North but perhaps in the circumstances would give him 10% of 4♠+1 and 10% of 2♠+3 (along with 80% of 2♥+3).

Attention has been drawn to an irregularity it is everyone's obligation to call the TD. With experienced opponents, I would shrug or ask "OK?" and play on. With a non-playing TD and inexperienced oppononents, I would call the TD. In a club with a playing TD and inexperienced opponents, I would ask "Are you accepting the lead?" and play on if they played on. I might say "You have rights: for instance, you can forbid a heart lead". Once I got to close to making rulings as a player, I would have to call the TD. [i guess if I were the playing TD, I would just go through the spiel for an opening lead out of turn.]

The double by Wladow (East) was more-or-less in tempo. The pass of the double by West was out of tempo.

I was commentating: there was no alert of the X by the vugraph operator. It was later explained as penalties/to play.

As I understand the L&E position, if you are confident enough to leave in the double (with a non-descript hand) then you should alert because you are taking it as penalties. Other opions are possible, YMMV, etc.

So I can understand your position, in your example: If Wests says "I will make ♣A" (implicitly conceding three spades), and East objects, does play cease? If West says "You will make three spades" (implicitly claiming ♣A), and East objects, does play cease?

I have a lot of sympathy with this view. However, it is possible to require an alert when there is no partnership understanding, if only to signify that there is no understanding. The view of those responsible for the regulation is that doubles of natural suit bids are alertable if the meaning is penalties either from partnership agreement or from general bridge knowledge. In effect, as if the regulation said alert such doubles if there is a partnership understanding that the double if not takeout or there is no partnership understanding but general bridge knowledge tells you the double is not takeout. To me this comes close to requiring players to say "how they are going to take" a call, something the regulators have been discouraging them from for decades.

I think this answers your question.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit. So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues? But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases? I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule.

What is USBC (as opposed to USBF)? [OK I see now: United States Bridge Championship.]

Do you have any agreements about 2NT-(P)-4♥*-(X)-XX? [4♥ is a transfer to 4♠.] In the US open trials, the auction got this far at both tables; three EW players thought XX was a reverse retransfer: forcing responder to declare 4♥ (and doubler to make the opening lead). The fourth player (responder at one table), thought XX could be passed (offering 4♥XX as an alternative contract) and did. Amongst other things, this was a gross burn's law violation and went for 2200 and 19IMPs.

> Does anyone have any more info? Point range? Splinter? Not a splinter, most minor suit lengths are permitted. Point range is limited: less than 1C-1S-2C-2H (=natural and forcing) The idea is that hearts can get lost after 1C-1S-1NT/2C/2D, you want to play 2H as forcing, so you can't play in 2H opposite a weak NT type hand. > Is this a standard bid in some systems? Certainly they are not the only pair who play this.

Thanks for the info. I had just come to this forum to ask what happened. This was on vugraph and nobody noticed that the bidding systems didn't match?

So (1C)-2C = some two-suiters is not an alert: are there other non-alertable agreements?

I am surprised (1C)-2C = strong, takeout is alertable. You seem to be suggesting that only 2C = majors is not alertable, I can't believe that is right.

When commentated on this hand today, I suggest a TOX, so I guess I should be consistent.

I don't think "Something funny is going on here" is drawing attention to an irregularity. I think it takes one of the other players to admit they have revoked, before there is an irregularity to be drawn attention to.

Yes, treat it as a normal established revoke. The defence are not required to point out that there has been a revoke. What the defender said gave declarer a chance to correct the revoke, it is not his fault that declarer did not understand.