gordontd

Do you mean the opening lead? If not, the situation is a bit different depending on whether or not the lead was made by declarer or a defender. If a defender's card could have been seen by partner, then it must be led. If it was led by declarer, it can be changed, regardless of who may have seen it, until it reaches the state of being played, which is defined as "held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played." Note that "same breath" is not a term that exists anywhere in the Laws.

Maybe he only bothers responding when he holds 13 cards.

I wouldn't if I were South - I'd be worried about East having solid clubs for the double. We might well be going off in 1NT when game in a major is cold.

Yes, the widespread use of limit bids including NT responses, later adopted by Std Am players, was one of the significant features of Acol.

What does the EBU have to do with it?

I think that depends on the player. For some there is no explanation other than "partner forgot".

In truth I do not think I have seen this happen outside of an auction imposed in a UI ruling. This is not to say that it hasn't, nor that it's not the right agreement, but in practice players usually pass or occasionally raise - especially when they aren't sure of their agreements. Again I agree with your argument, but now I have seen players bid like this, foolish though it may be.

I once had eight-card support for my partner's second suit! 1♠-1NT 2♣(promising 4) I raised to 5♣, going two off for an average board.

That's not bidding your hand at all. Isn't bidding 3♥ obvious? If you did have to make a stab at a game contract (which you don't) I wouldn't have thought 4♥ would be the first choice.

Nobody rebidding 2S?

I'm about to go to New York for ten days, and might have an opportunity to play bridge. Which clubs are reasonably high standard where I can go without a partner? Which days are best?

We're in a jurisdiction where the stop procedure is fairly widely observed as required, even if not usually for the full ten seconds, so not having been told anything about this should mean there was no break in tempo.

Since you described it as a ToX, which they had said it was not, I think you did.

That was my view initially. However, when we found out how they say they play the double, I had some concerns. If they are going to double on a 3433 hand as well as a 1633 hand (which is what the North hand was), I can't see how they can make any sensible decisions without the risk of unconsciously using UI from the tempo of the auction. The South hand in question bid 5♥, but this would have been very wrong if partner had held a strong balanced hand, rather than the typical takeout doubling hand he had. The trouble is that it's really necessary to have some information about other similar auctions this pair might have had in order to be able to judge this with any accuracy. In the event my colleagues decided to disallow the 5♥ bid, and as stated above the pair decided not to appeal because they were too far from the prizes.

I would expect one of the advantages to be that it increases the ability to penalise. If you have to bid 4NT for takeout, you can't thereafter defend 4♠x.

They are both Grand Masters, albeit those who have probably gained their ranks over quite a long period of time. And both around their sixties, I think. I don't think they were asked what they would bid 4NT on - certainly the hand that was held, and their answers to other questions, suggest that it wouldn't have been for takeout.

I think they meant that it covers quite a range of hands from takeout to penalty.

It made my head hurt too! I think if you consider what might be suggested by UI from partner, you can then exclude possibilities based on your hand.

Everyone seems keen to ignore their claim that they play the double as neither take-out nor penalty.

South's hand was ♠ 97 ♥ T742 ♦ 872 ♣ KT32

There was a difference of opinion amongst the TDs on this one, but it wasn't appealed because the pair concerned were lying too far down the field. We are told that a slow takeout double suggests leaving it in, and a slow penalty double suggests taking it out. On this auction: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h4sppdp?]133|100[/hv] What would you expect partner's double to be, and following from that, what do you think a slow double would suggest? If you were told that double was neither takeout nor penalty, but 50/50 and partner is expected to judge what to do, what do you think a slow double would suggest? If it matters, and I think it might, they were playing four card majors.

Sure. Playing Asptro, 2♦ in the sequence (1NT) - 2♣ - (P) - 2♦ is a non-forcing relay.

Law 92A says "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director", so unless you think this refers only to NPCs (in which case the use of "his" instead of "its" as the possessive pronoun for a team would be odd), then in at least one situation the Laws use the word "contestant" in a different way than it defines it. I doubt if that would surprise many members of this forum.

I suspended him. It was the final session of the event, but otherwise he would have been allowed back in. That's the advantage of suspension, in terms of the smooth running of the event.

I had someone here in England say something like this the other day; that regulation changed more than 20 years ago.