gordontd

As described here, this does not of itself provide a precedent. Did the L&E conclude that the rule is not hard and fast?

I agree that, if you're going to make move, 5S seems best, but the heart control you're hoping for is most often going to be a singleton, and if you're playing the trumps for one loser that sounds like one off to me.

If he said it in your hearing, it's quite possible that he didn't realise, and you could just have said, pleasantly, "you know you're not actually allowed to do that".

Follow the thread please. I was responding to someone who assumed written bidding, in a reply to David Stevenson, who had told us what the regulations say in England and Wales.

He specified England & Wales, where written bidding is not used.

I don't recall ever seeing it until this thread.

White Book 16.6.1:

I find it quite possible to consider a call, but then decide that I am definitely not going to select it. I would find it strange if you then said that I might select it when I know that I would not. I had also wondered if the use of "might" rather than "would" is a consequence of the matter being hypothetical, but that's probably for linguists (of whom I am not one) to comment on.

If you've led a sheltered life, the storm must have been ferocious indeed.

No, it would gain them the trick whether or not they had consciously committed the second revoke for that reason.

I recognise "colour" for "suit" too, but only from encounters with non-English players. I don't think that possibility would even occur to most native English-speakers, so they would have no reason to check.

I used to play in a team whose other pair included one of the most irritating players I've ever encountered. When people asked why I was in his team, I pointed out that it meant I never had to play against him. Had we used Bridgemates then, I wouldn't even have had to score up with him.

I think it's a fairly simple L36a case - East made an inadmissible call, South called over it, so both are cancelled and the auction reverts to East.

But the TD who formed the committee is likely to have taken that into account.

Fortunately for them, most people in this situation are playing behind screens, which protects them from the UI. Otherwise, I would suggest they play a simpler system, because they would indeed have difficult UI constraints.

When you (thought you) bid 3NT, you didn't expect it to be alerted. So the alert, when it came, was unexpected. You are explicitly allowed to use this information for the purposes of L25A1 if you want to change your call, but not otherwise.

Actually a Pass Out Of Rotation, not a Bid Out of Rotation - different laws apply.

That's why 3C is forcing.

You're talking about the case from Pula in the original post; I was talking about the case from Lille, which has alos been considered in some detail in this thread. Sorry for confusing you.

I can't quite see how this paragraph fits in with what we are discussing.

He would have no choice.

Law 68A lists three ways in which a claim can be made. In the case from Lille it was in the process of being made by the first of those methods ("Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks."), but that statement was initially reported not to have been completed, and it was on that basis that the claim was ruled not to have been made. I understand that the player had not showed his hand.

I think you should read the law I quoted.

This is wrong.

:) But I think there needs to be a cut-off point, and it makes sense to me that it should be at the end of the claim statement rather than the beginning, not only because we wouldn't know what the original intention was if changed in the process of making the claim, but also because people sometimes start talking before having completed their thought processes.