jeremy69

Given what you say about his attempt to conceal I think you were spot on with the size of PP.

I would not pass. I would bid 2♥ and see what happened from there.

I believe the WBF Laws Commission met in Philadelphia and there was much discussion on if and whether Reveley rulings could be made and there was certainly not unanamity. Perhaps this was to try to address the different interpretations. I've sat on an appeal at an English congress which included, as an appeal member, a senior (now departed from us) European official who was visiting. He insisted the score could be split in such a position. I insisted it could not and I think we ended up wading through the white book. He branded the EBU position ridiculous and me arrogant for daring to contradict him, a person of great knowledge and experience so we ended up writing up his dissenting opinion.

Can someone help me with why the application of the law should change according to the jurisdiction one is in. I know there are options where a zone can decide for itself "Having no hearts , partner" for example but is this one?

I think that there are some things which if said at the table, even in the heat of the moment, are unacceptable and this is one. If you settle for warnings, stern or otherwise, then you give comfort to this sort of behaviour. Not only should it incur a penalty of 20% i.e. twice the norm but unless the player apologises for the comment I would take it further, not by way of a fine, but by inviting them not to attend unless and until this is resolved.

I could live with red but thought it was suspicious enough to want to record.I would listen to their explanations before deciding.

I would record this as amber (so no score adjustment) because you have failed to support partner with one of the better hands possible (3 trumps and a shortage). When would South support? I agree that there is a control mechanism here judging by the facts as presented.

Isn't partner's propensity to forget agreements information which you should not take into account when making your decisions?

I believe there have been rulings before concerning a slow pass by the partner of the 1NT opener where this player holds tram tickets and the Laws and Ethics committee advice has been that this is not an acceptable position to think and adjustment should be considered if one is persuaded some damage has been done. I find it hard to believe that South was unaware of the effect his think might have and if called to the table would have some difficulty in believing he was considering 3C. If he was then a good think followed by a pass probably has the same pre-emptive effect. The players in the event are all representing their counties and should be judged appropriately considering this i.e. it is a significantly above average event.

When West bid 3D then if in theory that showed hearts and diamonds but West had done this sort of thing before(which is UI) was East put off from bidding 4H. If 3D was forcing only to 3H then East has a clear 4H bid. If 3D was FG with both red suits then with 4 hearts and AAK I would have thought a cue bid of some sort to be normal. Now I know poor players don't necessarily do this sort of thing but they do jump to game especially if they have never discussed whether 3D is INV or FG. At the very least the TD ought to have asked some more questions.

I don't agree provided the players are roughly in the same category of player as those who bid the hand. Did they provide any evidence of their methods? Could they demonstrate 5♠ was forcing, for example? Thery did not seem to do so at the time according to what we have seen. In the other thread apprently(how tedious to have two!) Well they all say that don't they? Let's see it in the system file because one interpretation of a slow 5S is that the player is not clear whether to go on(I agree that 5♠ can be interpreted other ways also.

The director did exactly as required. No criticism at all warranted. I can see no reason why East should not have called the director and find an allegation that it is spiteful extraordinary. There are some sequences where a sign off can be accepted if the player has the higher not lower number of Aces but I don't think there can be any hands where South would open 2NT, super accept and have one key card therefore for whatever reason North has doubts and I don't think South can over rule after the slow 5S bid so put me down as one of the 40%.

Many who play Weak Two's around the country play it as 6-10. Whilst some would certainly regard the hand as too strong it is worth remembering that the original Ogust meaning for 2S 2NT 3NT was AKQxxx and out. The regulations are not made for advanced players but all players and a nine count is not normal We are not in Italy nor writing our regulations for Italians. Traditional Precision is 11-15 although the more aggressive will open some 10 counts. No reason why the definition of opening should not apply to all systems. not just Acol and it does.

I don't agree with this. I would not consider opening at the one level on an 8 or 9 count with some distribution normal. All thi is saying, in my view, is that you can't use the fact that a hand conforms to the rule of 18 or 19 if it does not also meet the minimum of 8 points.

1. You don't HAVE to enforce it. No club has to accept the OB regulations although I think they are wise to do so in general. 2. x QJ10xxxxxxx x x is undoubtedly 8 clearcut tricks but no-one would suggest this had "the values" normally associated with a one level opening. Although an extreme example you dfo'nt want this hand being described as strong, Benjamin or any other phrase that will put people off wading in over it. 3. I think most people would open a shapely (5-5+) 10 count so would allow any hand that met that criterion as well as the 8 clearcut tricks Some deprecate the lack of a precise point count but even when a regulation is precisely framed e.g. clear cut tricks this still leads to vigorous debate about exactly what it means when, irrespective of whether one agrees or not, it is, to my mind, completely clear.