gordontd

I find waiving rectifications causes 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.

Because we have two aces.

I think it denies a control in the unbid suits.

Perhaps when a player's disability causes the infraction.

I'm glad to have an opportunity to agree with AlexJonson with without reservation :rolleyes:

2♣x is likely to produce a better score than 4M?

I mostly agree with this, but I would ask East why he passed. He might be good/experienced enough that pass would be routine in this situation to give his partner to indicate whether or not the first round of the suit is controlled.

Yes, I open 1♦

I said earlier that "In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting", but I wouldn't have bothered quibbling with Pran had it not been such an extreme difference in perception. There are probably more that aren't noticed - one thing we've discovered is that the amount of information available on the web after events means that more errors are discovered that might well have been overlooked in the past. With Bridgemates, later players also often notice surprising scores and bring them to the attention of the dirctor, and most software also flags up potential errors of this sort.

Absolutely so.

It doesn't sound like a serious error to me, and it doesn't sound like it was unrelated to the infraction.

My guess would be that at least 95% of players here play 1NT as natural, though maybe only about 75% of serious tournament players.

I find saying "we" or "me" rather than "you" helps a lot. As in "let's ask the director to see if s/he can explain this to us so that we know for the future". Or more commonly "let's get the director to help us sort this out". Perhaps in the original scenario something like "I was wondering whether it's ok for me to ask about the auction before I make my final pass". That should get an answer telling me that I'm always allowed to ask questions at my turn to call, but that I might be advised not to if my partner is on lead because I might limit his/her options. Make it clear that you aren't in any way trying to sneakily report an infraction, and opponents are usually receptive to the information they are given.

No. I'm a fan of Bridgemates, and was a director at the first club in this country to use them regularly, initially as an experiment. I've directed over a thousand events with them since 2005 (if I remember correctly). I'm simply disputing Pran's rather wild assertion that "Bridgemate typically reduce scoring errors with a factor of at least ten". Even allowing for the fact that things are always done better in Norway than anywhere else, this seems most unlikely to me - unless Norway previously had a terrible record of poorly entered travellers?

Then I have rather more experience with Bridgemates than do you, and my impression does not accord with yours.

I can't argue with someone who has 30 years experience working with Bridgemates.

I agree that they should be avoided if possible in large serious events, but when boards are played late I think it generally assists all the players at the other tables in finishing on time. In a club event, if there's a single late board outstanding when other players are leaving the club, they'll get the results online when they get home.

On what do you base this? In my experience about as many errors are introduced by scores being entered with the wrong declarer as those that are avoided by incorrect arithmetic or illegible handwriting.

This is true. For a while he played while carrying around a lit scented candle, which helped a bit. It was a pity, because he was a good player (often the highest master-point winner for the year), a very amiable man who lived to play bridge and didn't seem to view it as an option to stay away from events.

Allowing the final pass to be withdrawn wouldn't help matters - it was the final double that is under discussion, and it's too late to withdraw that.

I think they should be directed to L12B2.

That this was not all laid out in detail in the original post does not mean it didn't happen at the table.

You got lucky, because you showed more than you had with both the second double and the 3C bid.

Being "fined" is being issued with a Procedural Penalty. It's not an EBU thing (though your question now makes me wonder if calling it a "fine" is).

No. I think it would help you get to the wrong denomination more often than it would help you reach the right level when you have a heart fit.