RMB1

Law 43 says there should be a procedural penalty: this should be a fine of the standard amount. Nothing in Law 43 tells us what to do about the irregularity, so Law 81C3 applies. So the TD applies the appropriate law(s) to the lead out of turn by defender. Robin

Was 5NT unintended? It appears so. Was there pause for thought? There was a pause between looking at the bidding sequence and the announcement that 5NT was a mechanical, a pause that allowed time for thought. I think this must be ruled a pause for thought. So Law 25A does not apply, and 5NT can not be changed. (South has UI from North's reaction and announcement, which may, for example, prevent South from correcting to 6♠.) Robin

Doesn't "second worst" mean n cards split (n-1) - 1. Is this really what is meant? To avoid further confusion could "second worst" be spelt out as "partner holding a void and one opponent holding a singleton". Robin

How many spades did 1♠ show? 5+ / 4+ (presumably not 3-) How many spades would X by partner show? (4 / 3- / 4+) Thanks Robin

Perhaps it was me. I was "consulted" indirectly, by being given the hand while watching BBO. I thought 4♠ was a solid suit and extras, so I made a slam try. It looks as if I was out of touch about the likely (possible) meaning for 4♠ and agree that Pass is a LA for North. Robin

Because (as Peter says) L27D only applies after L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.). To reiterate, having ruled that neither L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.) applies, the TD ruled that L27B2 applied to 3♦. Because L27D only applies after L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.), the TD does not apply L27D. Because L27B2 refers to L23, the TD can apply L23. I guess I am missing the point of the question: L27B1(a.) or L27B1(b.) refer to L27D; L27B2 does not refer to L27D; L27D refers to L27B1. Robin

Probably not in the right forum. I guess EW were declaring a spade contract and the last five cards in East and West were a spade, three diamonds, and a small club; declarer will have lost a heart so far. Declarer played the last club and claimed expecting to win three tricks but claimed only nine tricks in total. Declarer has apparently conceded four tricks and in asking the TD for a correction to ten tricks he is attempting to have concession cancelled. The relevant (offline) law is 71. As described, the correct ruling would be to use law 71 to cancel the concession and to score the board as ten tricks to EW. Robin

2♠ was explained (to the TD) as a strong jump overcall but all the NS bids were non-forcing. I understood (second hand) that "strong jump overcall" meant "a real 'double then bid' hand". NS play a bidding style all of their own and we were not sure there were any real peers who would bid the same. But with this meaning of North's bidding and South's values, we thought that 4♥ was a logical alternative to passing 3♥. Robin

h2osmom, I'm affraid you miss Frances's point. Well, that's jeremy69, mamos, bluejak, dburn and me put in our place. Maybe we shouldn't bother posting, as apparently it's not noticed when we do. The previous poster complained that those in "ivory towers" who "decide laws/conventions" but "never seem to have the time to participate in these kinds of discussions online". Frances refuted this by listing five members of the EBU Laws and Ethics committee who contribute to these online forums (or the previous incarnation of IBLF). Members of the WBF laws commission contribute to other online discussions, and others follow the discussions and make their contributions through intermediaries (when so moved). Robin

Isn't it better to play an immediate 5H as a mild slam try, and 4N-5m-5H as to play? This similar to "scrambling" 2NT sequences, if ...-(2S)-...-2NT is (primarily) two places to play then ...-(2S)-...-3H is a mild game try and ...-(2S)-...-2NT-3m-3H is a sign off -2NT-3C-3H is a single-suited sign-off but -2NT-3D-3H is two places to play C+H OR single-suited I think this is covered in Robson and Segal's book Robin

Assuming the kibitzer is a player in the current competition then I fine him - twice the standard amount. Assuming EW contest the claim, I rule on the claim: the line proposed by kitbitzer is a normal line which leads to one trick to the defence, so this is what I rule. Robin

Sorry Peter, you are right; I should have looked more closely at the form before posting the link. What is accurate is that we use the forms to record 12C1c adjustments. These days, the scoring software has moved on and we can enter the adjustment in the computer and it does the scoring. The scoring software does the calculation more accurately, along the lines you descrbe. The provision for the TD to do the calculation and report the matchpoint adjustment is only a fallback. Robin

There isn't usually room on the traveller (either a hand-written piece of paper or a computer report) so it just appears as "adjusted score". A TD or the software may detail the adjustment of the bottom of the traveller: 60% 3SX= NS+570, 40% 3SX-1 NS-100. In the EBU we have a form (available on-line Weighted scores adjustments, normally coloured green) for the TD to inform the scorer of the adjusted score, and to perform the calculations if necessary. Robin

This is true in England, it is not true in Eastern Europe. I'm not sure which two suits "Michaels" shows in (say) Poland but I know it isn't the majors. Internationally and online, an explanation of "Michaels" should be treated the same as "Ghestem": it shows two suits but you can't assume which two suits. So East is probably guilty of giving an incomplete explanation and North/South are "guilty" of not asking for clarification. They may all be innocent if they think "Michaels" has a well-defined meaning: just a different meaning for East/West and North/South. I assume that 1♣ was artificial strong (or two-way including artificial strong). I think it was negligent of North/South to accept an explanation of "Michaels" of an overcall of an artificial 1♣ without further clarification. If we rule misinformation then I would adjust to 4♠ making for both sides (Law 12C1e). I assume "Online/ACBL" does not allow 12C1c; with 12C1c I would adjust to some high percentage of 4♠ making and the remainder 4♠-1. Robin

I'm not sure I understand the process that should happen for disciplinary problems. If I am brave enough to call the TD and say this opponent is being loud and obnoxious - and it spoiling my enjoyment. Does the TD require me to fill out a written complaint before they will investigate? Robin

Good question. It is worth reiterating the legal position. Allowing for a psyche when it is not clear from general bridge knowledge that partner has pscyhed is evidence of an (implicit) partnership understanding: a concealed partnership understanding is illegal. Robin

I'm not sure I really understand this. Don't you always take a pen and paper to all TD calls so you can write down auctions, etc.? Robin

Phil has it right. The relevant law is Law 65B3: (Law 16B is the law on unauthorised information.) Robin

I would rule the board fouled under Law 87A. Since there are no other scores to compare with I would award an artificial adjusted score. If this is the case or if North-South were stationary and East-West were moving (Law 7D) then I would award AVE-/AVE+. Otherwise I would award AVE=. Robin

Don't you people have diversity training!? If the regulations prevent people playing bridge because of their religion, I would be worried about contravening human rights legislation, just as if the player were disabled. I would expect to treat this player the same way we treat disabled players in the EBU. This basically gives the TD the authority to modify any regulation if considered appropriate to accommodate a player with a disability. I think "modify" can be read as "disregard". I would suspend the regulation for written explanations on this side of the screen. This regulation is regularly flouted at European events, anyway. I would have expected the player to have anticipated the problem and to have informed the tournament organiser in advance (or did play extend beyond sundown unexpectedly?). Robin (was RMB on bridgetalk)

I do think I know what I'm talking about - I have read the Orange Book - many times as a reviewer and as a TD. If a bid shows spades and another suit that is a specification that includes holding 4 diamonds, because the other suit may be diamonds. Robin

If 2 ♦ shows spades and may have another suit, then it may not have 5 ♦. If 2 ♦ shows spades and another suit (4+) then it may not show spades and diamonds, although it may have three suits including diamonds and spades (showing spades and a "round" suit). You can play 2 ♦ as weak with 5+ M (specification does not show diamonds) and agree to open 2 ♦ with 5M+4♦ but not 5M+5♦. You can not play 2 ♦ as weak with 5+M and 4+ in another suit. You can play 2 ♦ as weak with two suits, neither of which is diamonds, with 5+M; and agree to open 2 ♦ with 5M+4♦+4♣ or 5M+4OM+4♦. Robin Robin

Today's bulletin (number 8) says that the first three teams from each group (of six) enter Swiss A. This makes more sense of the carry-overs. I think you have more chance of qualifying 27th from the top approx. 64 teams in Swiss A, rather than 5th from the next 64 teams in Swiss B. Robin

If that's true, I find it really irritating. The WBF Laws Committee have just revised this rule. Most of them have an excellent understanding of English, so when they wrote it presumably they knew what it was that they were saying. If they meant to say something else, why didn't they say so? Oh it's true all right. See www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBFInformation/Reports_Minutes/LawsCommitteeMinutes/2008-Beijing.pdf, bottom of page 2. The revision of Law 27 has had a chequered history. In late drafts there was only (what is now) 27B1(b.) not 27B1(a.). I guess someone pointed out that a simple correction to lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination would not always be permitted by 27B1(b.) and so the original law (now 27B1(a.)) was reinstated. Robin

There is a PDF copy available from the EBU L&E 2007 Laws page. Robin