Lanor Fow

The laws themselves do not specify who should input or write down scores. There may be local regulations applicable, but the EBU does not regulate that North has to score. Indeed in the white book it says "Possibly because of some very old Laws there is an impression amongst some players that only North is allowed to do anything. They assume he has to score, look after the boards, put the board on the table correctly, move the boards and so on. Some people ascribe further responsibilities to North, such as looking after speed of play, deciding whether the board should stay in the centre of the table, and so on. How much of this is true? According to the Law Book, only moving the boards is the specific responsibility of North [Law 8]. However, custom and practice, plus some local regulations, mean that scoring is normally done by North or South, and checked by East or West."

I personally would be more inclined to say the description was misinforming opponents if a 14/15 point hand could be a possiblity for a 'weak takeout double'. The orange book only has one definition of the word weak, "high-card strength below that of an average hand". Whilst I'm not sure if the authors intended this to be sued whenever weak it used, I would expect that a desciption such as the one given for the hand suggests more than the hand could be below otehrwise expected strength, rather than a minimum normal take out double. South had the opportunity to clarify what weak meant, but chose to make assumptions instead. I would be more sympathetic to a beginner than an experienced player, but in both cases I would rule no adjustment, as I don't beleive there is misinformation. I would however suggest to EW that they give aproximate point ranges in their explination of this bid.

I assume in that latter case we can still use law 73 where applicable? AS to the case in hand, do we know the agreement for 2♦? I originally expected this to be alertable if agreed to be this weak, but 5 G 3 "Players should not alert:" (d) "Any non-forcing overcall where the suit may contain only four cards, or the hand shown is or may be very weak." in the orange book seems to suggest otherwise. If the agreement is not to be this weak, then we may well be in the fielded misbid/psyche area. If so, how would one rule, on the fielded misbid/psyche or the UI, or is it dependend on which would give the better score to NOS?

If it is a 4 card raise that isn't jacoby (which I believe is what we're discussing) then starting the answer to the quetsion 'Is it jacoby' with 'yeah' is more than misleading, it's surely misinformation, even when coupled with the rest of the response (which doesn't do anything to dispell this belief opponents now have that you play jacoby). Saying that a convention name isn't sufficient disclosure is not the same as saying that it's white noise that can, and will, be ignored. Whilst Blackshoe may well be right with regards to the laws, I personally find it impossible to consider this 'full disclosure' for any definition of the word full that I have come across. Perhaps we should instead call it the principle of 'limited disclosure'.

The EBU also has the same adjustment for fielded deviation.

I'm confused. You're quoting a law that applies (at least the way i'm reaing it) when a board is played twice by the same pair. This didn't happen here (if i read OP correctly) as the director was on the ball enough to stop it being played the second time. As such we don't have a second score to cancel, we jsut have one score, and 2 artificially assigned results (which I agree with). I can't see why we are trying to apply 15B. Where am I going wrong?

It seems fair; is it legal?

I didn't read this thread all in one go, so was perhaps not completly aware of all the arguments to and fro. I didn't think that what I posted had been brought up in that fashon whilst discussing 20f1, but if it had then my apologies for adding nothing of substance. I did post as I was interested to hear a rebuttal of the argument by one of the parties who disagree (as I currently cannot think of one) rather than to just indicate disagreement. I will re-read the thread and look for my answer there.

If your analysis is correct Axman, how would you rule if the last trick was one that dummy is now void in? (can't remember if there is such a suit in this case, but in a general case where there was)

In the case of asking bid such as 2nt over 2M opening, the reason for making such a call is because one is interested in one or more of the responses. The relevant inferences about this call (2nt) over others must therefore be heavily based on the possible responses. Yes it may be possible in many cases to explain what hands could bid this without referenceing the responses, but I would imagine that for the vast majority, to get all the inferences the explination would be very long, and have a lot of potential for missing some of the inferences that one is required to disclose.

apologies, was posting on an incorrect original situation

Thank you gordon (it was an honest question)

Out of interest, which laws are you using for that ruling Greg? As play stops when a claim is made, what they have done with the cards afterwards doesn't count as playing to the hand, and so I'll rule down one for both sides, with a warning to call director rather than play on. I dont really consider a PP.

IN leve three, if they open this by agreement, then it's an illigal agreement and thus the adjustment should be Ave+, Ave-. If this is a deviation from their agreement I'm ruling it an illigal psych, and again giving Ave+, Ave- (i think this is correct but am less confident than on the first one).

If Burn's 25th law were implemented, IMO we should also change the EBU bidding box regluations on when a bid is made to be more like the ABCL ones.

Which does nothing to deter 'we might as well appeal just in case...'

I must admit I dont agree with just about anything the TD did here. To your questions: 1) I dont think that this partnership necessarly has an implicit agreement here. They have no history of forgetting this bid, and were we to explain everytime we changed a convention explinations would be a lot longer and a lot more confusing. 2) However if west bid based on the fact that his partner has probably forgotten the change and is bidding as per the prevoius agreement, this is definately a CPU and I would adjust accordingly. 3) East is not obliged to say anything, however many poeple feel that there personal ethics dictate that they should. If east wants to, this is the best time. 4) THere was no misinformation, so im my mind the TD is incorrect in allowing the pass to be chanegd. 5) The TD is incorrect in not considering an adjustment for the reason he gave (pass was changed). If there was misinformation, and if that misinformation would have affected an earlier call in the auction that could not be changed, a TD should adjust. In this case the TD seems to be suggesting he would have otherwise adjusted for a CPU (Fielded misbid specifically). This has nothing to do with the change of the final pass, and if the TD decides he would adjust, he should adjust in either case. The only reason where that would not be the case would be if the NOS got a better table result than the adjustment would give.

They are the non offending side regardless of whether they ask or not. If the call requires an alert, not alerting is an infraction and the pair who didn't alert are the OS. Obvoiusly if the NOS ask, its unlikley to cause damage (i'm not going to comment on whether they should have asked, this has been covered by other posters), but ask or not OS and NOS don't change.

Wouldn't the CC give evidence that they weren't playing a strong club system with a negative 1d as in your working hypothosis? I would also argue that the law doesn't ask for it to be 'completly clear', merely a lack of 'lack of evidence'

What is the best way of finding out intention apart from asking Pran? Whilst other evidence is useful, and self serving statements need to be taken with a pinch of salt, i am confused as to why you would ignore them intirely. Surely the best way to investigate (as in all other investigations) is to gather as much evidence as possible, rather than discounting some right off the bat. That said I am new to this, so please correct me where I'm going wrong.

But surely the information that partner has a problem gives information about his hand, in that he doesn't have a straight down the line limit raise. Though we may not be able to know the exact problem, we still have information about partners hand. In many cases the information can be slight, or inexact, but even so there is still some. If a break in tempo truely conveys no information (which could well be argued to rarely, if ever, happen at the table), then it is surely axiomatic that this is not a UI situation, as there is no information to be unaurtharised.

Yes, in my opinion. All parts of 25A seem to be satisfied. The 2♣ as descibed seems unintended to me, and it was substituted without pause for thought

Continue with the hand. The fact that 1♥ has been bid is UI to south, the fact that south didn't see the 1♥ is UI to north, everything is authorised to E/W. Give north either a PP or a lecture/talk about when he is allowed to correct MI, based on their experience

Isn't that a failure of the 'newer replacement bid box cards' rather than the regulation?

Hmmm Codo, I refer you my earlier post. I have specifically stated that at the table I would talk to the players and if i felt that they had no agreement (or there agreement was natural) I wouldn't adjust. I dont particulaly see why you are asking me questions I have already answered. Nor do I imagine that you expect me to write out word for word what I would ask the players. Is it not enough to write that i would investigate, and in what circumstances I would not adjust (as I did earlier). As to my assumptions. There are some, yes. The original post doesn't have enough information in it to make a ruling without assumptions. I've already quoted the part of the post (and statements not contained in the post) that lead me to the assuption that this is an implicit or explicit agreement. My assumption that this is a usual situation for this pair is based on the fact that it is quite a usual multi auctino (up to the 4h bid). Obvoiusly in places liek teh ABCL where multi is unuusal its much less liekly to be a usual auctino for this pair. The OP didn't give a jurisdiction. Simmilaly for some pairs, especially inexperienced pairs this might be an unusual or even new situation. Obvoiusly in such a situation I do not adjust. North passing 4h is evidence of it not being an agreed two suiter true, but no stronger than south bidding it beign evidence that it is a two suiter. Yes it is not written on the CC, however I have an agreement with my regular partner abuot this sequence, and despite normally taking about ten pages of additional notes for oppos if they want them at the table, this sequance is not listed on it. Simmilaly my partner and I have many high level sequences where bids are two suiters that are simmilaly not listed on our CC. THe CC cannot contain everything, and i would be more surpised to see this sequence listed than not, even if there is an agreement. As for the alerting of the bid by south? I think greenlander argues that better than I could, and I agree with everything he puts. Obvoiusly at the table I might come to different conclusions