RMB1

Nice question, Roland. I don't think there is any law or regulation that covers this. If a spectator says "I didn't notice" then I would let it go. Even if I think the spectator did notice: after all I accept "I didn't notice" from a player at the table even when it is implausible that the player did not notice. If a spectator says "I would rather not answer" or "I refuse to answer because ..." then I would normally treat this as "I did not notice" and move on. The spectator should not be discourteous toward the TD but a spectator can refuse to answer without being rude. If I thought a refusal to answer was sufficiently ill intentioned or obstructive, I could raise it as a disciplinary matter. I looked the EBU's disciplinary rules: (NOTE "Appeals Committee" here is for an appeal against the decision of a Disciplinary Committee, not the normal AC of Law 93.) So if a spectator's action in refusing to answer "falls below the accepted standards" of behaviour, the spectator could be disciplined. This doesn't help, because we don't know what is acceptable. But failure to provide full information to the disciplinary process is itself an offence. So you may be able to refuse to answer a question from an EBU National TD but if he asks you as a member/secretary of the L&E then you can't refuse :( I note that in the original thread, the spectator was a vugraph operator. I am not sure to what extent a vugraph operator is an assistant of the tournament director (like a scorer or a time monitor) or is an agent of the tournament organisation; as such they may be subject to more limitations. Robin

Law 9A3 The second sentence, the one that allows "to prevent another player's committing an irregularity", is not explicitly restricted to the play period and so I think this is allowed at all times. Robin

I observe (some) players use their annoyance or expression of dislike to knowingly disconcert an opponent, and to gain an advantage. This is still cheating. Robin

I think the TD is ruling that West would correctly explain 2D when asked on the first round and (having given the correct explanation) West would be aware of the correct explanation and would not bid 3S. I do not think this is the correct interpretation of "had the irregularity not occurred". Robin

I am not sure what the auction would be to 3NT without the misinformation that the TD envisaged. Although NS can be assumed to bid with the correct information, West forgetting the agreement is not an infraction and it seems likely that West will still bid 3S. We know that North did not bid 3NT over 3S with the correct information so it is difficult to see how the TD expects NS to reach 3NT, or how they will avoid a spade lead. I guess the crux is the TD ruled on the basis that without the infraction, West would not bid 3S; I disagree and think that without the infraction West would still bid 3S. Robin

Law 12B1 I am worried about the word "because" : should we still be concerned about consequent damage when deciding whether to adjust for the offending side. Basic example: NS bid to 4H, there is UI and EW bid 4S (an infraction of Law 16). NS make a serious error (say a revoke) in defending 4S and score less than they would in 4H. Without the serious error, NS would score more defending 4S than declaring 4H. Does "damage exist" in the sense of Law 12B1? To me the word "because" suggests there is not damage, the less favourable score is not because of the infraction. If the law read "following" instead of "because of" then I would have no trouble in saying damage exists. Does this mean there should be no adjustment for the offending side in the example? Perhaps the phrase "to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction" does not require damage to exist. Is it this phrase than means we adjust for the offending side? (In the previous thread, I explain that we do not adjust for the non-offending side when the damage is all self-inflicted, under Law 12C1b.) Robin

Let us suppose that the contract is always 4 down except that NS commit a serious error (e.g. a revoke) and the result is only 3 down. Let us say that result in the other room was NS +680. How do we apply law 12? Previously we might have ruled that NS were not damaged at all: the infraction (4S) should have lead to a NS score of +800 and without the infraction they would have scored +680. But now Law 12B1 tells us that "damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred". NS did score +500 and without the infraction they would have scored +680, so there is damage and we apply Law 12C1. EW, the offending side, get the score for NS +680 (0 IMPs) under Law 12C1c (or 12C1e). If we apply Law 12C1b literally to the non-offending side, then we have to calculate the part of the damage that was self-inflicted. The self-inflicted damage is the difference in score between NS +800 and NS +500 = IMP(800 - 680) - IMP(500-680) = 3 - (-5) = 8. So NS get the adjustment for the offending side less the self-inflicted damage = -8IMP ? Obviously not, because this is worse that their score at the table IMP(500-680) = -5IMP. This is because all the damage was self-inflicted, as we would have said previously, there is no damage consequent to the infraction, the damage was all subsequent (caused by the revoke). The upshot is that NS keep their table score, -5IMP. This is a general conclusion from the application of Law 12C1b. When the damage is all self-inflicted (without the serious error the non-offending side should have done better with the infraction) then the non-offending side keep their table result. ... If the number of undertricks were different then the would be real damage and self-inflicted damage. If 4S should be -3 but a revoke lead to -2 then EW still get 0IMPs but NS lose the self-inflicted damage IMP(300-680) - IMP(500-680) = -4IMP. Robin

If East leads a heart then ruffing with the ace is a normal line for a player who thinks there is no trumps out. Ruling: 1 trick. If Law 70 D 3 tells us anything about defensive plays, it tells us that East leading a heart should be considered a normal line. It does not tell us whether East leading a club is or is not a normal line. I think East leading a club is a normal line and gives West a trump trick. Ruling: 1 trick. Robin

Oops! Sorry, my remarks belonged to a different thread, which also featured a 4♦ bid. Robin

Law 42 B 2 "He (dummy) may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer". This suggests there must be a potential irregularity for dummy to prevent. Robin

In the EBU, fractional IMPs are rounded to the nearest IMP after the 12C1c weighting is applied (exact halves away from zero?). So there are no fractional IMPs by the time we come to convert to VPs. (Althought we do use 0.5VP for penalties.) 5♦ is not "authorised" to the imagined declarer in 4♠. 5♦ can not have happened if declarer is playing in 4♠. Robin P.S. I could point to "... had the irregularity not occured ..." in 12C1e(i) but that would open up a can of worms (WBF LC minutes, 2009)

I think pass is a logical alternative to 5♦ and the hesitation suggests any bid over pass. So adjustment to 4♠ is OK. North is likely to lead partner's suit. If declarer plays three rounds of spades and then use ♦A as an entry to take ♣ finesse, drawing the last trump when ♣A wins, that is 12 tricks (just losing ♠Q). So I could say 4♠+2. I would probably want to includes some weighting of fewer tricks. Robin

How can this be a fielded misbid? We are told that East has not misbid. What is this putative adjustment to 60/40, are we adjusting because there is evidence that West used 4♦ to remember the partnership agreement? Robin

That's easy from your perspective David: the connection between London and civilisation is the North-West mainline railway (or the M1/M6 motorways). Robin

My experience from various parts of South England is that one-winner movements are the norm. Two winners usually only occur by accident when they forget to arrow-switch. Robin

EBU practice would be to ignore 3% and rule "result stands" / "no damage". Robin

I disagree. Suppose (on a different hand) our agreement is 4130 and I forget and use 3041. Partner explains 4130 but there is nothing on our convention card to support this. I know that when the opponents see my hand they will think they have misinformed. I know the TD will rule they have been misinformed because there is insufficient evidence to rule misbid rather than misexplanation. I think it is helpful to inform my opponents of my intended meaning (what is in my hand), even though it is not our agreement. Indeed, I think it is necessary to so inform them, to avoid a ruling on misinformation in the play. Robin

But bidding 7♥ to play over 5♠ gives the impression that "trumps" in the explanation of 5♠ was hearts. If the agreement is that spades were trumps or there is no agreement as to which suit was trumps, then I think the apparent implication that hearts were trumps should be corrected. Robin

It appears that 1♠ was not the intended call, but the TD must decide. As described, the change was in time: there was no pause for thought. The fact that North's "oops" caused South to realise his error does not prevent the change (see another thread: Mechanical error). North's "oops" was not illegal communication with partner but legally drawing attention to an irregularity. West is not allowed to accept 1♠, Law 25A applies and the correction to 2♠ stands. Robin

Can I try 7NT, and hope LHO does not have a heart to lead? ;) Robin

I assume 7♥ was passed out and that we have reached the point where South has heard the explanation of 5♠. If I think that (systemically) spades were agreed or that it was ambiguous, I would explain that partner's explanation of 5♠ was correct but the trump suit was not necessarily hearts. I would not feel obliged to add the following, but would normally do so: "The confusion about which suit is agreed seems to have lead to some general confusion about counting key cards, whichever suit was wrong. The 5♠ makes no sense, given my hand." Robin

I think the original TD may be confused about natural v. artificial two bids. You can "get round" the EBU's artficial strong two bids regulation by playing (some) two bids as natural. You can play any strength for opening two bids showing the suit bid. But they must be announced correctly: if they have 8 playing tricks (not 8 sure tricks) and may be normal (one bid) opening strength, then they should be announced as "intermediate", or "intermediate to strong, non forcing". You are not permitted to play artificial opening two bids that show 8 playing tricks in the suit bid or another suit unless the bid meets the strong opening two bid regulation. At level 4 (the norm for national competitions), you can play 2♣ or 2♦ as (say) intermediate with either major, because the opening bid does not show the suit bid. Robin

There can be two problems here. 1NT (X) 2♥ [= ♥ or ♠] is difficult to deal with whether it is an explicit agreement or an implicit (lack of) agreement. The fact that partnerships that have not got an agreement are making the auction difficult for both sides is IMO unavoidable, once the explicit agreement is a permitted agreement. The other problem is that the implicit (lack of) agreement can be described in various ways: "no agreement, everyone we play with plays this as natural or transfer", "natural, but we used to play it as transfer", "transfer, but partner forgets", etc. It is then difficult for the opponents to know what agreement has been explained, and whether the should treat 2♥ as "natural", or "transfer", or "either major". To return to the earlier sequence (1♣)2♣-2♠, 3♠-4♣. The problem with bidding 4♣ is that it may provide evidence of an implicit understanding that 2♣=natural or majors. This understanding may not be a permitted agreement (depending on what 1♣ was) and you may have misinformed the opponents. Robin

What if South just said "Partner, is that the call you intended?" ? Robin

Sorry, I misread the original post. My belief is different from Sven's, I think Law 25A does apply. There was something (a WBF LC minute?) that said the old Law 25B did not apply if partner had done anything; but that (minute) was not in reference to Law 25A. Does this boil down to: does Law 25A apply when partner's actions cause the player to notice what he has called? I believe that if the intended call is not alertable and the actual call is alertable and the events occur in normal tempo: North: bid, South: alert, North: "that's not what I intended"; then Law 25A does apply. I don't think Law 16B1(a) applies: choosing to correct the original call to the intended call is the only logical alternative. Robin