RMB1

As part of the definition of the WBF "continuous" VP scale, it assumes fractional IMPs are be retained on individual boards but then the match result is rounded before conversion to VP: exact halves in the match result are rounded away from zero. (GordonTD: mamosTD and I had to dig this out after a weighted ruling in a Camrose event.)

I don't think that is what "wild" means. It is not true that a wrong action is a wild action. I think "wild" implies something about the motivation for the choice of action.

Was the TD called? Was there a ruling?

Unless (1NT)-X shows an opening bid with clubs ... or something more precise

If opener is not allowed (systemically) to bid above 3♥ then the rebids to 2♠ might be seen as psychic control. This might make 2♠ psyche illegal.

Fixed?

The same as standard 1♥ - 1NT - 3♠/4♠ I am not sure what is standard: 3♠ auto-splinter, spade shortage with long hearts; 4♠ void/EKCB ??

Whose quote is that? It is not a rule in some jurisdictions. If it is a rule in your jurisdiction, there needs to be a rule for converting non-balancing IMPs to reciprocal VPs. You could extend the mechanism in Law 86B to apply to victory-pointed teams, not just knockout.

I thought that would work, but the 4-table "Flower" Howell movement (below) does not do what we want. There is no round where 1 and 2 are NS/EW at tables 1/3 or 2/4. 8v1 2v7 3v6 5v4 8v2 3v1 4v7 6v5 8v3 4v2 5v1 7v6 8v4 5v3 6v2 1v7 8v5 6v4 7v3 2v1 8v6 7v5 1v4 3v2 8v7 1v6 2v5 4v3

We calculate the difference in IMPs. The final calculation will result in non-balancing IMP scores, and we calculate the VP separately for the two sides, resulting in non-balancing VP scores.

We would not normally rule on a SEWoG case by declaring the proportion of the damage is due to the erroneous action - instead we would say that if there had been no SEWoG then NOS would have obtained a different/better score (possibly weighted) and say that the damage due to the SEWoG was the difference between the score at the table and the score without the SEWoG.

OK. Sorry, I mistakenly assumed that "nonforcing" (in helen_t's "a nonforcing 1nt response is alertable") meant not forcing.

Sorry to disappoint, but in the EBU a 6-12 NF 1NT response is alertable.

I do not understand the purpose of redefining "normal" for the purposes of Law 69B when Law 69B does not include the word "normal" and does not reference the footnote that currently defines "normal". Law 69B uses a different test entirely: "likely". If anything is to be redefined to change Law 69B it is to define "likely".

Conditions of contest are the responsibility of the Tournament Organizer, but some regulations are the responsibility of the Regulating Authority. A club can be a Tournament Organiser, and set conditions of contest, without being a (delegated) Regulating Authority. Surely the laws require an explicit statement from the National Bridge Organization to delegate/assign Regulating Authority status to other organizations (Law 80A).

In the EBU (not sure about other jurisdictions) the defenders are not (at all) responsible for ensuring that dummy has displayed 13 cards.

I can do that bit. You need to install perl, on Window that means downloading Active Perl (or strawberry perl). Then in a command tool > perl -w BridgeMats.pl But in Windows you have more work to install GhostScript and GSview to convert .ps to .pdf

Multiple teams: AVE+ to both sides, +3 IMP to both teams; Law 12C2 Knockout teams: flat; EBU White Book, 8.90.3(e) (In principal Law 86D could apply.)

If a player has an impairment then the tournament organiser can/should make special regulations to allow the player to be able to play the game. One example would be for dummy to name all the cards in dummy as dummy is spread and for players to name cards as they play them.

That would be for the AC to suggest but obvious things would be awarding AVE+ for the boards the pair did not play, refunding (a proportion of) their entry fee, the TD apologising for misjudging the situation.

I do take note of criticism of the content of the White Book: both the intent and the wording. That does not [can not] mean that all criticisms will be addressed in future revisions.

I think there are some nuances of distinction which are not obvious from "decision under this clause is final" and "may not be overruled by an appeals committee". Penalties may not be overruled but TD rulings can be reviewed and the Appeals Committee can suggest the TD change his decision to penalize. The EBU position is that you cannot appeal suspension from the current session before the end of the session. In principal, the decision could be reviewed later by an appeals committee, who could suggest the TD ameliorate [change for the better] the consequences of the suspension.

[Failure "to play along" deleted] > What are your thoughts now? Opponents are playing a strange agreement on this auction. I imagine that they think the auction or the meaning of the calls is different from me. > And if you come to a conclusion, what are you allowed to do? I am allowed to do anything legal - I do not have UI - the TD told me that I have gotten all the information you are entitled to. For an action to not be allowed, I have to have unauthorised information which suggests the action.

I fear "new bridge" is the game as played by Fantoni-Nunes and Fischer-Schwartz; leaving most of the rest of us left behind playing "old bridge".

With our hardware/software, generating and displaying the assignments/pairings is not a factor. But current-round assigning does not allow for tables to finish late and the pairs catch up in the next round. Round-in-arrears for 3-board rounds copes better with slow tables. We usually play through, but there are lots of possibilities for splitting into sections for later sessions. Giving up mid-session is "frowned upon" - there can be post-event disciplinary sanctions. We allow pairs to withdraw between sessions and do have stand-by pairs at the start of a session who can make-up a half table. We do stratify master-point awards and prizes for overall ranking. For long rounds (6,7,8 boards) we award master-points per "match" won: these are not stratified. GordonTD has an answer to the OQ (original question)