gordontd

What I should have said is "I find waiving rectifications without cause creates far more problems and creates more unpleasantness than just playing the game by its rules. After all, that's what a game is: something that's played by rules." You may recall an occasion when just such a thing made a difference to which team won the England Trials.

The auction begins 1NT - 2♣* - P - 3♠ *2♣= majors Before bidding 3♠ the player took out the stop card as required, but then hesitated before making her 3♠ bid. What (if anything) do you think is suggested by this? In the actual case there was some dispute as to whether the hesitation had actually occurred, but for the purposes of my question assume it had been agreed.

Yes they can. They have the benefit of knowing their opponents' agreements, and the benefit of them having forgotten those agreements. Of course, in this case if West bids 3D, North won't be bidding 3C.

Maybe it's pairs.

Ah yes - the vulnerability question. Well done for your win.

I never use either phrase, preferring to establish agreement that there has been a tempo break or whatever.

So, bidding 4NT clearly isn't going to help you.

They prescribe that "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer."

However, the law doesn't specify that as a form of words that need be used.

Those who think offering to play high-stakes money bridge against someone strengthens their argument.

Was the problem that he was a boy, or a servant?

Whether anything can be done now depends on the regulations in force. You may be too late for it to be corrected. If you are not too late, from what you now tell us it looks as though you should have got 9.33 MPs instead of the 6.6 you were awarded (though the other scores would have changed by a small amount too).

I suggest you look again, and consider which card was being talked about. Start with post 8 and you might get an idea of the full conversation.

And Lebensohl is named after the mis-spelling of the name of a person who didn't invent it.

How many hearts did opener have? How many hearts did the 1♥ bid show?

He seems to have awarded you both 60%, so seems to have cancelled the board and deemed that neither pair at the table was at fault. I think you should ask him to explain what he did.

Deleted

No, in Duplicate play is meant to stop. In rubber bridge they play on with the benefit of seeing declarer's hand.

In that case, I would call it something else.

You might if it weren't forcing or weren't a raise.

You seem to have missed that a claim has been made, and the way the rubber bridge laws are usually interpreted would have made this acceptable practice.

Could you give us a clue as to what the issue was?

It seems clear to me.

I heard a new annoying phrase recently. When our plane landed we were told that we wouldn't immediately be able to "deplane the aircraft". And I'm irritated by those who "give 110 percent"

You think this is more important than that partner is likely to have fewer points in the unauthorised auction? Of course in the actual case she had more clubs than she might have in the authorised auction!