gordontd

Oh, I always thought that was Modified Reverse Odd-Even McKenney.

Actually you have, in your post #12 in reply to my post #4.

There may be the odd isolated example, but I must say that in twenty years I have never knowingly encountered a pair who have agreed to bid spades first.

I agree with vampyr & bbradley - I think the claim was that she'll play her side winners first

Yes, he does rather. I'd missed this the first time, and am glad you pointed it out now as it gives me the opportunity to note that the players in question last year won an equivalent event to the one lamford & vampyr won at this event. I've also not seen any evidence that they wouldn't be able to stop in 4NT, and if it's an assumption I think it's a poor one.

I think the Eeek! you will get from the Scots for describing their country as part of England will be much louder and angrier than that provoked in you by suggesting that Liverpool is in the Midlands!

No, the other options are for when this one isn't appropriate.

Best would be to arrow-switch the board so that your partner plays the South cards.

Odd reply, since the rest of the post in which it appeared, even if one agreed with it - which I don't - doesn't support this conclusion!

Is there such a country?

Vampyr, in post 165, you've taken part of my earlier post, edited it, and put it under someone else's post to which it had no relation, then drawn a conclusion with which I don't agree. Please don't do this.

I agree with this attitude. Most of my bridge is played with random pick-up partners, and I could opt out as a host, but I decided not to when this first came in, and I've stuck with it - even getting 27% with a partner with dementia. My grading has jumped around a lot, but if I do get an unexpectedly good result with a low-graded partner, I get the full benefit of it.

From reading this, and knowing how people react when making rulings, I have no idea whether this would be a member of the NOS who didn't gain an advantage they expected to, or a member of the OS for whom the rectification was greater than restoring equity.

Especially since lamford set such store by information that was incorrect.

In contrast to all your other bids? :)

I am told by the appellant that this is not correct. The appeals advisors said that they thought pass was a logical alternative, not that they would choose to pass.

No, I don't think so, which is why he didn't use that wording. He did give another paper on the same course where he discussed how bad a play had to be before being considered to be a serious error. But in the paper I linked to, he sets out a procedure for judging damage, which seems not to follow the laws and makes no mention of SEWoG.

L28B says: L16D2 says:

I've just found this paper in which at the top of p2 the Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee appears to take an approach at odds with the wording of the 2007 Laws.

Not so. This is Kaplan's "consequent" vs "subsequent", which I believe is still quite commonly used in the ACBL, and I have seen it used in other cases.

Why couldn't I keep my big mouth shut?

They are only entitled to know what your agreements are, not what is in your hand.

They wouldn't have had recourse on the grounds that your hand didn't fit the description, if the description was an accurate explanation of your agreement. They might have had recourse if your partner's double of 5D was slow, since I would imagine that pass is a logical alternative with your hand.

Wasn't it only pran, out on a limb, who argued for the second one?

I doubt if you'll get any more information. The TD at the table is not here, and as far as I know nor are any of the AC members. One of the players is but is choosing not to get involved, as is his right.