RMB1

There are pairs (or individual players) who play 2♣ overcall as "Stayman" - asking for 4-card major, but not promising 4+/4+ in the majors. Some players call this "Landy". It is possible that this is North/South's understanding: they should be educated about how to disclose this understanding and may be that there is misinformation on this hand.

We should not rely on referendums. We should elect representatives and let them understand the issues and decide policy.

For Law 25A to apply, there has to be an intended call.

Welcome to International Bridge Laws Forum! Don't worry about "red herrings" - some posters dismiss almost everything than anyone else posts. :)

In the EBU there is no meaning for 1NT/2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ that is neither alertable nor announceable

If there is no announcement or alert, and an opponent points out that there should be an announcement-or-alert, this is unauthorised information but we would rule that it does not (demonstrably) suggest anything.

The EBU White Book defines penalties for failure to alert as warning/warning/procedural penalty for first/second/more offences; and none/warning/procedural penalty for incorrect announcement. (WB 2.8.3.4 (b) and (i)) Regulation of alerting/announcing is Law 40B2(a). Procedural penalties is Law 90A.

The law doesn't provide for untangling multiple COOTS by one side if they are out of turn and non-simultaneous: if one call is accepted what happens to the other call(s).

Despite what I wrote: West might have been trying to work out if it was ever wrong to ruff and would (in the end) always ruff ♣K. It is difficult to poll, because we don't know whether West had played sufficient attention to the earlier play, but there may be no logical alternative to ruffing ♣K.

I have no problem that calling the TD is an attempt to change the unintended call. I do not think that leaving the table without saying anything to the table is an attempt to change.

Yes. The latter is correct procedure. Leaving the table is not necessary because the same effect can be achieved by calling the TD first. Leaving the table unnecessarily is a violation of Law 74C8.

Why not? It is a pause between when you realise what call you have made and when you attempt to change it, and there is time for thaought?

To get the TD to rule on whether the change is permitted you need to attempt to change, anything said away from the table is an opinion not a ruling. I am not convinced that leaving the table to talk to the TD (without the permission of the TD) is part of the legal procedures. Summoning the TD may not cause a player to forfeit rights, but it might cause his partner to forfeit rights/options. Law 16A1© relates to authorised information from legal procedures but ends with "(but see B1 following)". I think that partner summoning the TD and anything partner says to the TD is extraneous and unauthorised.

The crucial cards from West's point of view are ♦A and ♣Q. When East claims a trick with ♣Q (without showing his hand) what does that suggest about ♦A? To me East is more likely to claim only one trick if he does not have ♦A. So I am not sure that ruffing is suggested.

Interesting cases. Case 1. If we read Law 25A, we see for the call to be changed there has to be an intended call to change to. If the player had no intention when making the call (other than the intention to make some call) it can be argued that there is no intended call and the call that was made must stand. Case 2. I think the status of conversation between a player and a TD away from the table is often covered by Law 81C2 "to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." If a player comes to speak to me away from the table I always go back to the table. If there is no ruling to be given: I explain that the player wanted clarification on a point of law or the players rights, ask if there is anything players at the table want to draw attention to anything, and instruct play to continue. (I can offer to explain more at the end of the hand.) If there is a ruling to be given: I attempt to confirm the facts I was given away from the table and treat it as if I were called to the table. So in this case, my answer is closest to (b). There is unauthorised information from the fact that the player said he wanted to change his call or from the fact that the player left the table to talk to the TD.

East claimed a trick with ♣Q, so West has UI. West tanked, so West has logical alternatives.

Surely the TD must rule that East has claimed and conceded some tricks, West has immediately objected, so play continues.

East objected to the implicit concession of one trick by West, so the TD should allow play to continue. Did West expose any cards or name ♠A? But these are not penalty cards. East has unauthorised information but there is no logical alternative to ♠10 at trick 12, ♠10 cannot win trick 13. Play continues, East is allowed to play ♠10 and the defence take the last two tricks.

It is possible to rule that the bridge logic of this claim "break down" when East would play the small trump. Then we might apply the WBFLC minute:

I think the slow double suggests not defending 3♥X, so it suggests bidding over passing.

No. Law 50D1(b) "The obligation [to follow suit or] comply with a lead or play restriction takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, ..." So if both defenders have a MPC, declarer may impose lead restrictions on one defender which overrule the requirement to lead the MPC.

My emphasis. Law 55B applies when declarer's play out of turn is the first card played to the trick. Law 57C2 applies when declarer's play out of turn is a card played after the first card played to the trick.

Is there some posh latin phrase which means "claiming spurious legitimacy for your point of view by quoting from an official document something you yourself wrote"? Anyway, any similarities between my earlier post and the quote from the White Book in blackshoe's post are not coincidental.

Why not? If the TD determines that equity (without the revoke) is 50% of n tricks and 50% of n+1 tricks and the revoke penalty only gives the non-offenders n-1 tricks, the laws allow a weighted ruling. Law 64C says to "assign an adjusted score", this allows the full scope of Law 12C1, including 12C1(c) (and until this year in the ACBL, Law 12C1(e) ).

Was the director playing? Now many tables? Was it Swiss? Barometer? Were there other (non-playing) directors? Did you just want a ruling on whether 2H should be alerted, or did you want a ruling on damage from misinformation from the missing alert?