gordontd

I don't argue against you exchanging 3♠ & 3NT, but I think your problem is over-stated. Without exchanging the two bids, 3♠ shows a spade control, but doesn't comment on seriousness; partner's next call will indicate that by whether or not s/he bypasses 3NT. If you continue in spite of lack of seriousness from partner, you indicate a serious slam try.

No, you don't need to be a member of the EBU as long as you are a member of your national federation.

Given that the actions themselves are not uniform, the decisions are not going to be either. However, I do think it's useful guidance, clarifying the murkier situation that existed previously. My guess is that TDs will rule in the way that avoids too many convolutions or bizarre outcomes, and in that a reasonable uniformity of approach will emerge. Let's not forget that this will all be done in consultation.

The Two-Stars Pairs was indeed in the past one of the top pairs events in the EBU calendar, but the Autumn Congress declined a bit over the years and was then moved to an unfortunate venue in Birmingham for a couple of years and it declined further. However, last year it was moved to Stratford-upon-Avon, a very popular venue familiar with those who have played in the Spring Fours, and it was generally well received, with numbers recovering to some extent. I'd expect this year to be even better as word-of-mouth gets around, and the format of the Two-Stars Pairs is enjoyable to play in (as long as you qualify for one of the two main finals!) As regards getting there, I don't think you could do it by public transport in the time you give, and although you could probably manage it driving I don't think you would be allowing enough time for contingencies.

That's not quite what they've said: they've said such actions may be deemed to be passes, and once the opening lead has been made they are deemed to be passes. The concern was to avoid casting doubt on the status of all the millions of auctions in the past that finished with an irregular pass.

Yes, I'm not particularly suspicious by nature, but in this case it's just blindingly obvious that in some circumstances players would be able to affect the outcome of an unfinished board simply by speeding up or slowing down. How many players would manage to get a lead on the table fast enough to be allowed to play a board that they believed they lost in the auction? Would they even know what their normal tempo would be in selecting their lead, when they have all the distraction of potentially having the board taken away, and not wanting to do anything unethical? So much simpler for us all just to accept that standard TD practice in this situation has developed for a reason, and follow it.

Over here, curtain cards were abandoned as pointless at the time that pre-duplicated boards came in. We do however do fairly extensive board checking before the start of play.

How much better it would be to tell them that they won't be able to play one of the boards from the next round. It still seems seriously misguided to me, for the reasons given at the start of this thread. I'm not quite sure what it achieves (on any round but the final one) that can't be achieved by taking away boards not yet started, but it does open the door to all sorts of underhand behaviour.

You put boards out around the entire room, two at a time, and get the players to pass each completed board to the next table. So, for eight board matches you need a minimum of one set for four tables.

This was discussed by the EBU L&E committee last year. And indeed in its latest edition the Orange Book now contains:

8 board rounds? 15 sets of boards. Plus a couple of spares.

I know it's matchpoints, and we're talking about a double, but it's not what I think a "matchpoint double" is.

I'm sure many players would find it frustrating, knowing that they are capable of playing a board in four minutes in order to catch up, to not be allowed to do so.

I expect they argue about what the hands were.

It is correct, for the reasons given above, but your fears are unfounded. You can take a board away before it's been started, and that's what you do when pairs get behind. You can alternatively fine persistently slow players. When a table is late finishing, tell them that if they haven't caught up by the next round you will take away a board or fine them.

We'll see when she replies, but I'd be a bit surprised if so, because that's not a method that's ever been used here and, although Stefanie is American, I don't think she's played much in the ACBL for a very long time. Of course win/loss/tie has its own problems, which is presumably why the ACBL came over to VPs like the rest of us. Did that co-incide with them using pre-dealt boards, or did it pre-date them?

Would New Orleans have the same effect?

On the contrary, converting to VPs flattens out such discrepancies to some extent, which is why I think it would be even worse to score by raw IMPs if the hands weren't pre-dealt. I think you've got it the wrong way around.

What point are you trying to make about the scoring method?

When you apply a rule and it gives you an answer you don't like, just re-write the rule!

As I say, these stories change a bit with each telling.

They know this, so they won't play it, and there won't be another result to cancel. Hence L15B doesn't apply.

You aren't. Someone else is.

I don't think he overlooked it: it just doesn't apply to the given circumstances.

I think you are correct. Since you have both a scorer and a director, the scorer ought to accept that he does not make the rulings. He might find it easier to score by the following method (if your software allows changes of pair numbers): Score the board as played by Pair 2 vs 5 - ie on the line for round 3, change the EW pair number to 5. Then on the line for round 5, change the NS pair number to 10 and enter a score of AV+/AV+ for 10 vs 6.