gordontd

If we are ruling on the basis of TD error, we adjust as though both sides are non-offending, so we would give a split score with NS getting a high percentage (perhaps 100%) of having bid 3♣ (or perhaps some proportion of 2♠ via a takeout double), while EW would get a high percentage (perhaps 100%) of the table result.

No, I can't imagine either North or South doubling 4♥ when they've already found their spade fit. If anything, I think the 4♥ would be more likely to spur them on towards slam. Presumably the TD was satisfied that the 1♥ bid was influenced by the failure to alert, pre-alert notwithstanding?

This case shows how it might save time to make time to fill one out before the Appeal is held, even if only in a cursory fashion. It's especially useful in UI cases to have answered the various questions that are asked on the form.

I suspect these are the instructions for playing Chicago, not rubber bridge.

A part-score in an unfinished rubber is worth 100 points.

Ah, I misunderstood from the title, and thought it was from an EBU event. May I recommend the use of Appeals forms, which are available to be downloaded from the EBU site, even for appeals in clubs?

There's a section on the appeals form that asks when the director was first called. Was that not filled in (and if so did the committee not ask for the information), or was it incorrectly filled in (and if so did none of the players correct it)?

To discourage them from doing it again. Ten days ago I was called to a table to deal with a board that seemed to have been fouled. I corrected it, cancelled the score, and fined the previous table, asking them if they had taken the board off the table or anything else that could explain it. They said no, but looked a little shifty. Then I was called back to the first table again for the same problem on the next board. I checked it and the other two boards in the set and found that they were all fouled, so I was able to correct two of them before they were played. When I went back to the other table again, they confessed that North (a visitor) had each time rotated the board at the end of the auction. I guess we were unlucky that NS had been declarers four times in a row!

There is no guidance, but nor is there any limitation. I came across a case this week when a declarer had accidentally exposed one of the defenders' cards. The first thing that needed to be done was to rule that it was not a penalty card.

I don't think this is the right question. I think you should ask what they call, and then, of those who selected double unprompted, ask what they do on the next round. "You double because your hand is worth a double and bid" is too leading.

Why would he have an opening hand with strong diamonds when he's opened a weak two in spades?

Not really. He should have anticipated that it would be likely to generate a diamond lead.

I think if you insert these in the examples in the original post, you'll see that they don't really do the trick. The problem is that "set of boards" is used in two different ways.

There's quite a lot about schools & mini-bridge at http://www.ebu.co.uk/minibridge/Introduction.htm, and I think you could get more information about proper bridge & schools from John Pain john@ebu.co.uk

Over here we don't say "set" - we say "defeat(ed)".

Odd that you limit your list to these countries. One might easily have included USA, Israel, India, which would have brought in three other religions without affecting the accuracy of your statement.

I'd say "board-set" in the first instance, "stanza" if I wanted to avoid saying "set" in the second instance (though I think "set" is more commonly used) and "sets of (32) boards" in the final case. To some extent the context clarifies it.

You don't necessarily need to do them in this order. If you think the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything, you can just get on and bid what you like.

If you think they are the only two alternatives, they can't both be suggested because the phrase in the Law continues "...over another".

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Would you explain?

I think I would need to know my partner before I knew what was suggested by the slow 3♥ bid. He might be wondering if I would take it as forcing when it's not, or he might be hoping it is forcing. Obviously those are contradictory, and with a hand like mine it might be right to pass even if he wouldn't have expected me to be able to. It looks to me as though the normal action, given the auction thus far, would be to bid 3♠. Pass could be right if partner is 5-6 in the majors, but in that case I would have expected the BIT to have come before the opening bid, not before the second re-bid.

It might. Which brings us full circle back to considering whether pass is a logical alternative.

I expect they were planning to show the heart suit - at the three level. That doesn't mean they're compelled to show it at the four-level.

I did an internet search and, choosing the first result that wasn't from a hostile paper or a gay paper, came up with this that seems to provide enough information to give a reasonable overview. http://www.iaindale.com/posts/christians-v-gays-the-battle-of-the-rights

Really? It seems takeout doubles at the two level have become game-forcing!