RMB1

But when partner has misunderstood 3♦, showing diamonds is not enough to get you to 5♥ legally. Any of the logical alternatives to 5♥ (4NT, 5♦) will not "wake up" partner and will not get this partnership to 5♥.

Very common England. If a county (region) or two counties organise a weekend event awarding green (national) master points then there will be one day of swiss pairs and one day of swiss teams. If the EBU organises a 3-day congress there will be one day of swiss teams (7x7) and two days of swiss pairs (13x8). Clubs play one-session (5x5) swiss pairs. The default was to assign a round in arrears, so the scores after round 1 determined pairing for round 3. Using bridgemates and/or small fields allow current round assigning, as in swiss teams, the scores after round 1 determine the pairing for round 2. Current round assigning is becoming more common.

I guess most of the information from previous years is still relevant.

Intent That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels).

Do people make two-suited overcalls when partner is silenced for at least one round.

Did dealer actually change his call to 2♠? If not then I don't think the TD should "offer" Law 25B; a change of call under Law 25B is an infraction and the TD should not give a player the option of changing a call under Law 25B (in the hope that LHO might accept) - any more than the TD should offer a player the option of making an insuffient bid. If dealer did actually change his Pass to 2♠ then the bidding in the original post shows that LHO has already passed, in which case 2♠ is a bid out of turn after the end of the auction and Law 39 applies, 2♠ is cancelled and there is no further penalty. Robin

Please don't apologise that English is not your first language. I think the international bridge laws could do much more to accomodate their non-native English spreaking audience. When I say It is meant to be a direct restatement of the footnote

Because its careless, because you don't care; and careless is included in normal.

I don't think the laws do require us to decide whether a play is normal or irrational - meaning that these are (the only) alternatives. [Excuse me while I indulge in some semantics/textual analysis] Law 70C/D and Law 71 require us to decide whether plays are normal (or not) with no mention of irrational. Law 70E1 requires us to decide whether plays that reveal the location of a card are normal (or not) and to decide whether plays that depend on the location of a card are irrational (or not). Nowhere (not even Law 70E1 which is the only place that "irrational" appears) are we required to decide between "normal" and "irrational" for the same play. Holding A10xxx opposite KQx we have to decide whether cashing KQ first is "normal" and then allow the claim when there is Jxxx on-side. Holding A10xx opposite KQx we have to decide whether playing for one of 3-3 break or Jxxx on-side is irrational (given the previous play). Because (on my reading of the laws) there is never a direct contraposition of "normal" and "irrational", it is possible for "normal" to depend on the class of player and "irrational" not to depend on the class of player. Robin

I think play could be completed even in the Irish case. At any point before trick 13, declarer or defender could claim/concede and the opponents agree. Play ceases and the board is scored, regardless of how many cards the defenders hold. I know "intent of the laws" is a minefield but I am sure that the laws intend that the TD award an assigned adjusted score when he knows what to assign.

I'm surprised as well! I thought I had persuaded the TD he could give an assigned adjustment. Sometimes our colleagues will not be told. :)

I think the agreement about "always" bidding 3♣ is a red herring. West thinks 3NT is not an agreed response to Lebensohl, so either East has forgotten that 2NT is Lebensohl or he has forgotten their responses to Lebensohl. Surely there is some chance (absent UI) that it is the latter, undiscussed 3NT bids tend to be to play, so I think Pass is a logical alternative. The UI (failure to alert) suggests that East has forgotten that 2NT is Lebensohl and suggests bidding over playing in 3NT.

Is this in the right forum? We are told there is no MI. The agreement was natural but West forgot. West has UI from the lack of alert of 2C. Pass may be a logical alternative to 2S and I think Pass is a logical alternative to 3H, and 3H is suggested by the UI. Without UI, West has shown the majors (with good spades) and East has twice tried to play in clubs, bidding 3C when the opponents had doubled 2C, surely West must respect this and pass 3CX. Good defence to 3C looks like CQ ducked, C7 to CA, 4xD (throwing H), Sx to SA, HQ, HA, HK ruffed C10 and discard S, SQ, and CK9 to East. EW 5 tricks. Adjust to 3CX-4, NS +800. Alternatively a weighted score involving 3CX-5, 3CX-4, 3CX-3. Robin

Technically, you are in receipt of extraneous information from the other table. So you could call the TD at the time. But to do so in order to get a ruling at the other table is likely to be seen as an abuse of your rights. Better to wait until you score up and get team mates to call the director. They should simply tell the TD what happened: "... the opponents told me I had to pass, so I changed my bid to a pass. But now a team mate tells me that what the opponent told me was not necessarily true." The TD will probably accept this as honest, and timely, and consider ruling (under laws 9, 10, 11). Robin

Lets put it in the pinned list of abbrevations. Thinking again about reducing the redress to EW. It is likely that the score without the SEWoG (5H-1 NS-100) is better that AVE+ for EW, as NS are usually plus, in which case EW would keep their table score because the earlier calculation would give then a score worse that their table score. When scoring XIMP it may be best to do the Law 12C1b calculations on a per comparison basis. The 4IMP (for two missing comparisons) can be seen as 2IMP per comparison. So without a SEWoG, the non-offending side get to keep a comparison that is better that 2IMP and get 2IMP for the other comparison(s). When there is a SEWoG, we compare the results without the SEWoG to 2IMP: if the result they could have scored is better than 2IMP they keep that comparison, if the result they could have scored is worse than 2IMP they score 2IMP-(C-A) for that comparison. Where C=IMP for result they Could have got (e.g. 5H-1), A=IMP for the Actual result (e.g. 5SX-3). Robin

Sorry about "SEoWoGA". We previously used "WoGA" but I guess "SEoWoGA" is too obscure. The new draft makes changes to 90.4.5 to account for Law 12C1b, and a change of emphasis regarding defensive errors. Robin

The adjustment for the offending side is automatic (EBU White Book 90.4.2) The adjustment for the non-offending side is subject to Law 12C1b (EBU White Book 90.4.5). If they make a serious error or a wild or gambling action, the artificial adjustment (e.g. +4IMP) is reduced by the amount that the SEoWoGA cost: XIMPS(5H-1) - XIMPS(5SX-3). The implementation of 90.4.2 / 90.4.5 with respect to Law 12C1b is in the draft of the new EBU White Book 2010. Robin

Out of interest: are there any EBU TDs left on BLML? I don't think fielded misbid should apply when it is general knowledge that partner may forget (as in this case). If opener wants to weigh the risk that partner has diamonds (not hearts) against the gain from competing to 3H, then he should be free to do so. I don't think fielded misbid should apply when the implicit partnership understanding that is being "concealed" (e.g. that partner forgets) would be a legal agreement were it explicit. In this case, it is legal to play 1NT(2C)2D = D or H, so there should be no adjustment for a fielded misbid but there may be an adjustment for misinformation. Robin (an English TD)

Although not strictly relevant, I look to Law 70C2: Is it likely declarer was unaware of the C8 remaining in an opponent's hand? The claim statement suggests that declarer knows the AKQJ of clubs have been played and there are at most two clubs left. The claim statement did not say there were no clubs left nor did it imply that. I would allow the claim. Robin

This was the RGB case: [hv=d=s&v=n&n=shdkqckj&w=shkxdxxc&e=shaqdcqx&s=sxxhxxdc]399|300|Scoring: IMPs With 4 tricks remaining here is the layout in a spade contract. West leads HK, the CJ is discarded from dummy, East overtakes with HA and declarer ruffs with Sx. Declarer then claims stating that dummy is good while he folds his cards. Everyone else folds also. But, before hands are pulled from the next board, East asks the declarer what his remaining cards were. Declarer admits that he had 2 hearts and a spade (trump).[/hv] My ruling on RGB was that the claim establishes the revoke. The claim is not good and a normal line is to lead a spade at trick 11, guessing to throw the wrong king (CK) at trick 12. Awarding the defence two of the last three tricks following the claim, and transfering the other two of the last four tricks for the revoke. Declarer gets none of the last four tricks and a penalty of twice the standard amount for attempting to conceal the revoke and his losers in the claim. Robin

The best I can do so far is Law 73D2: The claim statement was misleading, it suggested dummy's tricks were relevant, and therefore that there is an entry. Robin

If you need a hand, here's a hand: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=shdkqck&w=shakd2c&e=shqjdcq&s=s2h32dc]399|300|Scoring: IMPs[/hv] South plays in spades and won the previous trick in hand (with a spade). Robin

This was quite common use of multi 2D in England in 1980s, although the ranges of the options were slightly different. Rebids were: 2D-2H-2NT = balanced, 2D-2H-3suit = 4441 suit below singleton. Responder's rebids following 2NT were as for 2NT opening. Responder's rebids following 4441 were range relays, RKCB, spiral scan and 4D end signal. Rebids showing 4441 were more awkward if the response was 2S or 3H, and if the opponents managed to compete, distinguishing the various options was even more awkward. Robin

In an RGB thread, declarer (on lead) claimed "dummy was good" and folded his hand. Declarer's hand was not all winners and had no entry to dummy! Clearly, you award some tricks to the defence. Do you impose a procedural or disciplinary penalty on declarer? Under which law? Robin

But there is a rectification specified. The quote you give is from Law 73D2, the rectification is given in Law 73F. So an adjusted score is appropriate, if NS have been damaged. Robin