Lanor Fow

I've heard green and red a lot, white less and amber/yellow very rarely

Apologies Blackshoe, when I said 1H I meant double. Can i get a law25a correction for the mistake in the post? :)

As a result the EBU sees a lot more law 25a changes than the abcl, albeit most of them without a director call. I've often thought that if 25a were removed as has been suggested on this forum before, the EBU regulations would have to change to be more similiar to the ABCL (not that I'd support removing 25s). On the amended scenario, this doesn't fall under 25a as the intended bid was 1h. I wouldn't even call it a slip of the mind, as it seems to be just not paying enough attention (I won't give a PP for that :) ). The call stands and all the intention behind it is UI to their partner. If they attempted to change the call before calling the director then this would be covered under 25b, whereby LHO can accept the attempted change, otherwise the original call stands with the attempted change (and reasoning behind it) being unauthorised to partner and authorised to NOS.

Can you start the auction period of a future hand whilst playing the previous?

A friend sent me a question from an IMPed duplicate: "So there was a hand where we bid and the contracted ended up being 6Nx... I held AK to some number of hearts,... So I played the Ace of hearts, and declarer also had the ace... So we called the director.. And then looked at the board.. 3 of us had taken cards from one board, and the declarer had picked up the cards from the board underneath (which we hadn't played)... What happens now? " First hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sakj765hd8cakq654&w=s9832hq7dakj764c8&n=sqt4hjt3dt953ct32&e=shak986542dq2cj97&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1n4h5hp6ndppp]399|300[/hv] North had picked up the cards from the below hand, which they had yet to play [hv=pc=n&s=sk982hk652dq3c753&w=st64h84d872cak986&n=sa753haq3dt96cqjt&e=sqjhjt97dakj54c42]399|300[/hv] The cards have different coloured backs and I believe that NS are playing a weak NT. Firstly how do you rule. Other questions: If you rule the first board as fouled, what averages do you give and does the different coloured backs make any difference? Do you allow the second board to be played? If you do, bidding goes 1nt-p-p-p which goes down one. Do you consider adjusting? If it makes a difference east claims: "On the next board he opened a strong NT, and that's where the auction ended. We played the hand and obviously I knew he had the ace of hearts, but I had JT9x so when there was an outside chance of getting a spade trick, I still played a heart, because I *know* I would have done that if I didn't know he had the ace. "

Penalties is the unalerted meaning in those cases

Though I'm a couple of days late, perhaps, to make this post I wanted to say that I also find the SB posts generally very interesting and would be disappointed if they disappeared. Having been on blml for a time I think they are often much more related to edge cases than the dancing on pins that went on there whilst i was a member. I hope that a solution can be come to that allows for these posts to continue without having an adverse effect (if there is currently one) on the original purpose of this forum, which I've enjoyed reading since before they moved here. I also enjoy Lamford's posts and find his opinions interesting and well argued, even if I don't always agree. It would be a shame if he were to leave the forums. I also agree that moderating forums can be a time consuming and thankless job and think Blackshoe should be commended for the job he does.

In most cases though on the forums we're asked to assume the facts given in the original post. IN this way real situations don't differ from the hypothetical

Apologies yes, serves me right for posting quickly whilst at work and not thinking enough.

At the point the director is called back, we don't yet have a table result. I'd instruct the table to continue playing and that I would make a ruling at the end of the hand. If EW are non offending in the adjustment, one assumes they would probably forbid a heart lead as they did at the table, which makes the Dentists Coup impossible, and makes mute the discussion of law 50. EW get 2s=. I'm not sure if treating NS as non offending means we should consider the card a minor penalty card, or not a penalty card at all. In this case it's unlikely to matter, but it's worth noting that with a minor penalty card there should be no lead penalties anyway, so this is a second error on the directors part. As such when adjusting I would consider N to be able to lead anything. In this case this is unlikely to matter either as a diamond lead is best (or heart ace followed by diamond switch). I'd give NS 2s-1. I'm unconvinced if I should have instructed them to play on, given that both sides have been disadvantaged by two incorrect parts of the ruling (minor penalty card and lead penalties on a minor penalty card) so in any case I will be considering what would have happened rather than the table result.

It can be an advantage if no-one notices. Unlikely perhaps, but it will happen, and more unlikely things also happen at the table.

It sounds like the agreement is undiscussed. Whilst I never like the 'I'm taking it as...' explanation, the 'this has never come up' part seems to give the correct information, so I'm not sure there is MI. Even were there MI, had W heart 'undiscussed' given south's pass, I cannot see this changing their action. No adjustment (I'd have a word with South about explanations)

In many cases they will know that you're unlikely to know what the bid means. With opening bids you may have looked at the card or had them explained, but with other calls often it's not listed, you don't know the pair involved and it's not come up yet. Personally I always ask when a skip bid is alerted, but given I always ask here, which any partner of mine can verify, I am not passing significant UI by asking.

If they always ask when they don't know, then there is no UI, but it might be difficult to convince a director of that (especially if playing against a pair who have seen your partner not ask about alerted bids already in the round). If they only ask if they don't know and the auction is competitive, or might become so, then there is judgement involved, which is likely to be partly based on their hand. In this case, there is UI passed.

If the player always asks about an alerted stop bid (which I do in direct seat as I'm meant to be considering my call for 10 seconds, and how can I do that without knowing what it is) then there is no UI. If, however, the player doesn't always ask then there is UI. I would expect this to be the most common situation.

Given it's the EBU we can weight the two outcomes

But asking about a bid is not a violation of properties, so 73F doesn't apply here

If they alwyas ask then surely they would mention this to the TD, and He would have reported it in the OP. I also am far from convinced that we can use the actual hand as proof of what is or isn't suggested.

Thanks to those who responded on the thread and by message. I ended up having 16.5 tables and played the first session as a web. With a lot of help, I've sorted a interwoven howell for the second session, that given the number of pairs, I've managed to arrange the stationary pairs to still be stationary. Jeff Smith was very useful in telling me that i was initially trying to have the same pair play the same boards at two tables in the same round. Apologies Barmar for probably posting in the wrong place, I thought the expertise here would lead to it being most likely people would be able to help.

Mycroft, in the EBU, where this ruling was, you don't need to prove previous partnership experience for a CPU if the auction is suggestive enough. We use the traffic light system for fielded misbids and if deemed red, we rule 60/40. Of course, in this case as well as the potentially fielded misbid there is the UI question

I don't think giving either side -5 IMPS is correct. In cancelling the board, and deeming it unplayable you should now be assigning artificial adjusted scores and no non offending side should get less than +3. The white book states: "For a team not at fault, they should get an assigned adjusted score based on their favourable result obtained at the table and a normal result in lieu of the result not obtained; or AVE+." in 8.86.1 law 16C doesn't doesn't allow a non artificial adjustment when the board has not been completed, and whilst 86D allows an adjusted score in IMPS if there is an unusually favourable result at the other table, so we can give NS more than +3imps, but the white book notes make it clear that EW should not get less than +3imp. So applying this EW should get +3imps and NS should get 4hx-1 scored against a weighted score of normal results at the other table (I'd agree with Aardv about the possible results). I'll leave it to better players to decide what weighting, but it seems likely to be in the region of 10-13 IMPs to NS

Hi All, I'm directing a two session (24ish boards each session) pairs event and wanted peoples opinion on movements. I'm not sure on the numbers so I'm trying to cater for most possibilities. I believe that if necessary I will have three sets of boards. For small numbers obviously I can play two Howells and between 9-13 tables I could play a Mitchell followed by two Howells (interwoven if odd number of tables) For larger numbers I can play a Web, followed by two Howells. At what number of tables should I look to switch to two Mitchells, and when I do how do the lines switch? I've read that it's technically better often (with say 9-15 tables) to play two sections with a mitchell and howell in both sessions, I'm not sure the technical reasons for this, but should I be considering it in any circumstances, or would it be easier, not knowing numbers, to just play a web? Thanks

I'm not sure misunderstanding Michaels implies she doesn't know anything about P/C.

I don't think 73D1 applies. Everyone at the table can see that the BIT is caused by the drink, not by anything else, and so given this cannot confuse declarer, it can't work to the benefit of the OS.

If i make a mistake of picking up my beer, thinking that the person to the right is going to take a while to think, and then they play a card. I could, instead of waiting till i put my drink down to play a card, name the card I intend to play. Play can then continue, and I will play the card I named when i have a hand free. If i have designated the wrong card (rather than changing my mind afterwards), this would then fall under inadvertent designation. This situation is unusual, most people in most situations where they do not have a hand free will free one up and play a card, rather than designate one. It is, however, common to designate cards from dummy, so cards inadvertent designation when calling cards from dummy is by far the most likely application of this law.