jallerton

Not correct. Unless partner believes that the only plausible meaning for 4NT is natural, the 4NT call should be alerted under the EBU rules. Artificial (or potentially artificial) calls on the first round of the auction have to be alerted, even if they are above the level of 3NT.

I was West and I was not very happy. There was a regulation in force saying that once a score had been entered and accepted in the Bridgemate, it could not be altered unless both sides agreed. This regulation was clearly not followed in this case. It took over 24 hours for the TD to rule on the case; eventually he referred the case to the Chief TD to ask him to decide. The Chief TD's ruling was that the double should stand. Unfortunately, the rationale for this ruling was not communicated. This whole episode left a sour taste in the mouth.

Whilst the UI COULD be based on any of those possibilities, one cannot demonstrate which one applies, and each possibility would suggest a different action. Thus no action could demonstrably have been suggested by the pause. Hence Responder is not constrained in the bidding. To me, the 2007 wording seems better than the 2017 version. To say that a call "is demonstrably suggested" implies a higher hurdle then "could demonstrably have been suggested".

I can believe that you haven't played any boards with screens; if you had, your experience would be different. I have played thousands of boards with screens. Although most players try to adhere to the spirit of the screen regulations, I have not encountered a single player who has followed every screen regulation to the letter. For example: Over 99% of the time, cards are removed from the board before the screen aperture is closed. Virtually nobody follows the official procedure for alerting. The majority of explanations are not made in writing.

One point West made to the TD is that he is not permitted to touch the tray during the auction. So your suggestion that he created his own misunderstanding by failing to carry out the infraction of pulling the tray seems harsh!

Yes, pushing the tray part way through after the auction is over is a custom/habit amongst some players (typically the ones who plan to remove the tray from the table at the end of the auction) and yes the regulations do not authorise this practice. The EBL 2017 screen regulations say the following:

I haven't supplied the hands because I am more interested in the legal side of the case. Assuming that the hands were available, would you consider a (possibly weighted) adjustment based on your judgement of what would/might have happened had South & West seen the double?

Your deduction is correct. EBL is the abbreviation for European Bridge League.

Yes, sorry, all. I've now corrected the original post. For avoidance of doubt, the player in 4th seat doubled 1NT. South and West believed that the full auction had been 1NT All Pass. North and East believed that the full auction had been 1NT Pass Pass Double All Pass.

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1npp]133|100[/hv] Screens in use, North and East are on the same side of the screen. This is the last board of a 10 board set. East deals and opens 1NT. North pushes the tray through fully to the South/West side of the screen. South and West both pass. South pushes the tray through fully to the North/East side of the screen. West North places a double card on the tray and NorthEast passes. Now North pushes the tray half way through the screen. South and West infer from the half way position of the tray that 1NT has been passed out by North. So South and West pick up their bidding cards. North and East also pick up their bidding cards. South leads, West puts down dummy and the hand is played out in no trumps, declarer emerging with 5 tricks. South and West write down 1NT-2, N/S +100 on their scorecards. North and East write down 1NTx-2, N/S +300 on their scorecards. South is operating the Bridgemate and enters 1NT undoubled -2, N/S +100, accepted by West. When the players come to score up at the end of the set, the anomaly is spotted. Without talking to East/West, North/South tell a TD that this board has been mis-scored and ask him to cancel the score in the Bridgemate, which is then re-entered as 1NTx-2. Before the start of the next set, West approaches another TD and explains what appears to have happened. The West and South hands are such that after the start 1NT P P dbl P, then either of them might have pulled the double. How do you rule? [Edit: directions confused in the original write-up: now corrected and properly reported(I hope)]

I don't interpret it that way. 12C1b refers to probable outcome, not probable outcomes; so it is relevant to cases when weighted scores are not applicable. 12C1c, the section relevant to weighted scores, refers to probabilities, but does not tie the TD's hands into using the median of his estimated range of probabilities for particular outcomes. I also think we should get back to first principles. Law 12B1 starts: If I'm not sure whether 40%, 50% or 60% is the fairest estimate of the probability that the game bid without the infraction would have made, then how can I ensure that I have taken away any advantage gained by the offending side unless I give the non-offending side the benefit of the doubt within my plausible range?

Why would it contravene the new laws? In my previous example, I don't know whether the probable outcome of the board includes game making 40%, 50% or 60% of the time. I see nothing in this wording which requires me to pick the median or mean of these percentages as my assessment of the probability of this outcome for the purposes of Law 12C1.

I don't think that the new wording changes this. One could equally argue that the wording of the current Law 12C1c "may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results" does not authorise the practice of sympathetic weighting. The way I justify sympathetic weighting is as follows; Taking your example, If I could be sure that game would be bid exactly half of the time, then I would assign 50% of +620 and 50% of +170 because that is what the Law tells me to do. However, in practice I can rarely be sure. I am more likely to judge that game will be reached about half of the time. About half might translate to somewhere between 40% and 60%, but I can't be sure where within this range. This is where the sympathy comes in: I judge the probability to be either 40% or 60%, whichever is more beneficial to the non-offenders. The object is simply that the non-offenders do not lose out through my inability to estimate accurately enough what would might have happened.

If the facts are as you describe, there is more to worry about than East's BIT. At other tables where this hand was played, East was the dealer so we need to establish whether there has been an error on the physical board mistakenly marking West as dealer on board 26. If so I think we have to rule TD error and cancel the board, then hope to find someone who can explain how to apply Law 86D. Another concern for the TD is why the players apparently knew the score with 12 boards to play when the event was being played in (and scored up after) 8 board stanzas. Maybe a PP would indeed be appropriate if it is found that there has been use of banned electronic devices. On the other hand, if East was dealer at this table and North opened 1NT in 4th seat, this does significantly change what could demonstrably be suggested by East's BIT before passing over 1NT.

In respect of the misinformation claim, I first need to establish the true partnership agreement. If I deem that there was MI, I ask East/West to explain how they might/would have bid differently and why. Then I review the plausibility of their claims. Apparently the program in use permitted North to see South's alert of the 2♦ bid. This alert is UI, so I agree with other posters that a poll of North's peers (giving them the form of scoring - what was it, by the way?) should be performed to assess the logical alternative)s). Personally, I would not seriously consider anything other than 4♠ with the self-supporting suit and the hand improved by partner fitting the side suit.

Pass. Partner didn't bid 2NT over 2♠ but presumably must have a double heart stop to bid 3NT. I reckon she has something like a 2-4-7-0 shape. That suggests I should be bidding on with my red suits reversed, but not here. There again, if partner is 1-4-7-1 then a spade lead might kill the entry to my hand, so it certainly could be right to play in clubs.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the delayed 2NT is 2 places to play. This could be a hand with both minors if too weak to double on the first round - a genuine protective effort; Opener won't be acting on a lot of hands over 2♠ here.

Nor very likely. The singleton would have to be precisely ♥9!

Yes, indeed. So far 3♣ has been chosen by 80% (16 out of 20) respondents. At the table, South jumped all the way to 6♣ over 2NT. What do you think of that? One more thing. At the table, North alerted 2♥ and, on enquiry from West, described it as "Some sort of club raise, but I can't remember the details, sorry". What do you think of the 6♣ bid now?

How many partnerships do you think will have discussed the meaning of jumps to 4♣ and 4♦? Without discussion, wouldn't you be concerned that partner might take your 4♦ bid as an autosplinter? Although there is a chance that partner might interpret a jump to 4♣ as an autosplinter also, my view is that autosplinters should not apply in partner's suit unless the sequence has been specifically agreed.

So, perhaps even more significant then the change to the wording of the Law, we'll have a different recommended way for the TD to determine the "meaning" of the insufficient bid. Presumably the TD will no longer have to go through the rigmarole of taking the IBer away from the table.

Tony Forrester has written in today's Daily Telegraph newspaper an article about signalling. He observes: Whilst Tony is writing from the perspective of bridge merit, not bridge regulations, it occurs to me that what he says might be a good way of explaining what is meant by the term “dual meaning signal”.

That's not quite the whole story. The Board of Directors had proposed abolishing the Standing Committees. It is hardly surprising if people were reluctant to put their names forward for elections which were not necessarily going to take place.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqthaq853dckq765&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1cp2hp2np]133|200|1C=4+<br>[/hv] You are playing Acol with strong NT and 4-card majors. 1♣= 4+ clubs, but with a weak NT and 4/4 major/minor, partner would normally open the major. Your 2♥ bid is a strong jump shift. What now? Edit: surplus word removed.

Playing against you, good opponents will soon learn to pass 1♠ overcalls at this vulnerability on good hands. Missing an NV game will be a good investment when you protect with 1NT on a weak NT and an 800 or 1100 penalty is taken. With weak misfit hands, if they sense you have a trump stack they can apparently avoid being doubled by raising to 2♠ [not risk free of course - partner might bid on].