gordontd

I'm not sure I understand this at all - unless you intended the final sentence to be quite independent of the first part of your post.

So you're agreeing with my first reading of it. That's somewhat reassuring :) I did speak to Max about this later last night, but he was in the pub and neither of us had a law-book to hand. However he did say that the background to the changes in Law 9 from the previous lawbook had nothing to do with extending dummy's rights and were only prompted by a desire to extend defenders' rights to try to prevent irregularities.

Well, I tried to phone bluejak, mamos & Max Bavin to see what they thought, but none of them were available. I did manage to speak to RMB1 in a taxi on the way to the airport to go to Australia, and we came to the conclusion, comparing it with the previous laws, that it was probably the intention that dummy should be able to try to prevent an irregularity by defenders, but that this hasn't been very clearly expressed in the cross-referencing. Or maybe you do think it is clear, Andy?

That's my understanding of it. Let's see if anyone else reads it differently. I have had a look in the White Book, and the relevant bits (from Ton Koojman) don't really clarify it to my mind.

It would at least be consistent with your argument above. But no, dummy's right to attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity is subject to Laws 42 and 43, which only allow him to try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. I think it's implied in the original post that it was the defenders who were being presented as the cause of the suggested slowness. In answer to the original question, I don't think the defenders have any redress (and as I've already remarked I'm surprised that top-class players allow themselves to be disturbed by such a mild remark), but I do think dummy's comment might merit a PP.

I'd have passed on the first round, and then doubled on the second round (on the assumption that it would have continued as before). Doesn't that describe my hand perfectly? Then we'd have Lebensohl available, and if partner still bids 3♣ (showing values) I can bid 3♠. More likely partner will bid 2NT and pass my 3♣.

I would be amazed if anyone passed with North's hand. The tougher question is whether anyone bids (rather than doubles) with North's hand.

We do generally expect that the players actually be in danger of committing the irregularity before dummy attempts to stop them, and this doesn't seem to have been the case here. I'm slightly puzzled though that such strong players allow this sort of trivial comment (that could legitimately have been made by declarer) to distract them to the point of mis-defence.

I think it's 3 too. We don't allow players to get an explanation across the screen when one player has forgotten an agreement that s/he knows exists, so I'm sure we wouldn't allow a correction across the screen.

I think you should point him to: and However I'm not sure that your example is a good one: players don't usually consider playing the King under the AQ, so a hesitation here doesn't really indicate much (and there may well not be another option but to finesse). Change it to a situation where there's a two-way finesse and a high card has been led, or a lead towards KJx(x), and a hesitation is much more likely to create a situation for an adjustment. First of all though, make sure the player is aware of his obligations, and then if he continues to fail in them you could start giving him procedural penalties in addition to any adjustment.

It does feel as though they've taken over 1800 years to appear. I don't think his position on this matter is widely accepted.

I don't think he's suggesting ditching all concerns about tempo. Well, they do say in part that if there is no logical alternative to a call (as most of us think is the case here) you could make it even if it's suggested by the UI (which most of us don't seem to think is the case here).

I think you should explain what you mean by "if you had a fourth diamond" 5341 (in which case, no you don't have a heart suit to mention) 5440 5441?!

I've just noticed that some (but not all) of the lecture notes from the EBL Tournament Directors Course at San Remo are finally up on their website. In particular the discussion of "Serious Error" has been referred to here on several occasions.

You seem to be both asserting that pass is a logical alternative and asking whether it is a logical alternative. Personally I couldn't imagine passing in this auction, but the other question to be considered is what you think is demonstrably suggested by the slow 3♦ bid. Is it clear that it's a hand with extras, or might it be a hand that has stretched to bid 3♦? If nothing is demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo, then the player is free to make their own choice.

Do they have to prove they've lived together without quarreling? (For a day, never mind a year and a day, would be hard enough in the case of one prominent B&B couple I can think of!)

No, because they are not mixed sexes. But I would certainly allow them to play in a married couples pairs if such a thing existed (though thankfully they do not any more in most places of the world). You seem to have fallen into the trap of equating "married" with "mixed", even as you discuss same-sex marriages.

I ruled against a player in this situation last year: he led the Q because he believed it would be more likely to get a true signal, and then he paused to see what the signal was, to decide which hand he wanted to end up in. His LHO later mis-defended on the basis that RHO "must" have the K. The ruling went to appeal, and the committee overturned the ruling on the basis that he had a genuine bridge reason for his actions. I later had a conversation with one of the AC members (one of the top players in the country) and questioned the idea that, in this sort of apparent finesse situation, the lead of the Q would be more likely to get a true signal from LHO. He agreed that it wouldn't, but said that the committee ruled as they did because they believed that the player in question (also a very strong player) had believed that this was the way to get a true signal.

Would your partner not be expected to rebid 2♠ with a strong hand with four spades and five or more hearts?

So if it wasn't unintended, maybe we should go to Law 25B: A further interesting point in this is the distinction that's made between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call, presumably with implications for the application of L26.

L25b anyone?

Deleted

The problem is that if a pair corrects their misinformation in time, and it reveals a misunderstanding, their opponents are allowed to use that knowledge of the misunderstanding - in this case to double. On the other hand, if the pair fails to correct the misinformation, knowledge of the misunderstanding will not a part of any adjusted score. Thus as things stand players might well gain from failing in their duty to correct misinformation.

[hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1cd1s1s]133|100[/hv] Now South bid 1♠, West passed (condoning the 1♠ bid), North pointed out that the second 1♠ bid was insufficient, and before anyone could stop him, South tried to change his 1♠ bid to 1NT. What is the status of the attempted 1NT bid? (Unfortunately the bidding diagram doesn't seem to accept insufficient bids!)

At matchpoints?