gordontd

Yes.

73D1 (second sentence), leading to 12A1?

As has often been noted, the laws don't deal well with multiple infractions. I'd start at the beginning: South has bid out of turn, and West may elect to call (L29A). If West does so, North has bid out of turn (it's now West's turn to call) and is subject to L31A. If West does not elect to call, South is subject to L31B, which bars North from bidding. North's 1♠ bid would therefore be an inadmissible call and be subject to L37, which may lead us to L23 & L26. I seem to remember a similar problem, either here or on its predecessor on Bridgetalk, where I suggested something like this but was accused of "temporal re-ordering". However, I can't find the thread so I could be mistaken about the similarity.

Apart from the meaning of the word.

What does untouched suits mean? The majors? [edit] Ignore this :) I've worked it out now.

I don't think anyone has suggested doing that, but we do know the hand because we were told it in the original post, so it's reasonable to consider it in the context of whether L25A ought to have applied.

It tends to be less helpful when it has been properly disclosed.

It's not the fact that it's a psych that would be the problem - it's that it would be a change of mind. I'm more concerned with the right information being put out for those who don't already know it, than I am with whether those who don't know me think I have a sense of humour or not.

But that's not what she tried to do.

Even then, if you thought she had made a mechanical error and had been reaching for the 2NT card, this would not allow her to correct it to 1♦.

I usually start by asking the player which bidding card she was reaching for when she made her call. If she says 1♦, as would be necessary for her to even have a chance of a L25A substitution, I would ask her why she thought that hand was worth an opening bid. I think the likelihood is not great that I would be convinced by her answers that the conditions of L25A have been satisfied.

I would have thought seven is the most likely number of spades for this auction, if 3♥ had been natural.

+1

There was a lengthy thread about this topic a few months ago.

Well of course! No club that plays three times a week would pay someone else to do it. But it's not as though we're actively soliciting dealing for other clubs - they ask us, and that's the rate that just about makes it worth our while.

Our club charges £10 a set, and I don't think that's unreasonable: the machine cost us a couple of thousand pounds, servicing it costs about £200 a year, we pay someone to operate it, we need to replace cards, we duplicate hand records, and we're helping our competitors provide a better service. When I used to deal boards for a club by hand, it took me about 1 hour a set (without duplicating or paying for the hand records to be produced). Any less than £10 a set and it wouldn't really be worth our while.

EBU White Book:

Aside from them putting back the chapter headings and the contents pages from the previous lawbook, and removing the statement of confidence in their tournament directors?

In some jurisdictions it might be seen as fielding a misbid.

I think that's what you will have to do, as the alternatives would not be secure. However, if you gain or lose a team, you could run a Stagger with four-board rounds, and that would do pretty much what you want.

Equally unhelpful is polling players who see nothing strange about bidding like this, if the player in question would never do so. Of more relevance than whether partner dislikes conventions is whether partner makes offshape 1NT openings. Clearly 3C would show clubs if he does (though whether it shows clubs and asks us to pass, or shows clubs and asks us to bid on with a fit is not clear to me). But if partner only bids 1NT with a balanced hand, I can't imagine that 3C has any meaning. I've been in similar situations to this a couple of times, because at my club we have a standard convention card for pick-up partnerships to use if they wish, and this includes four-suit transfers. Twice I've played as a standby player with partners who haven't noticed this, and we've had the auction 1NT-2NT(transfer to diamonds)-3C(diamond fit) and in both cases partner then bid 3NT. In one case we were ruled against in spite of partner having a 12-count (12-14 NT) with AQxx clubs, playing IMPs. Certainly the possibility of me bidding 3C as an attempt to play in 3C is zero, but the various players who were consulted were not, in that sense, our peers.

L12A1?

Hi Robin, I tried to get hold of you to discuss this last night, but couldn't get you on the phone. I ended up discussing it with Max, and we agreed that the slow 6NT didn't suggest bidding on - we thought the most likely reason for the hesitation was wondering whether to bid 6S or 6NT. Now for the followup: while opener was waiting for responder to bid, he realised that he had misbid on the previous round, and he actually had three keycards, not two. So, he raised 6NT to 7NT, since his partner had been happy to play in 6NT believing there was a keycard missing. Any problem with this?

That isn't the same thing as "optional", to my mind. If I had to decide whether partner had a takeout double or a penalty double I would be sure it was a takeout double, so I would bid. If I were told it was an optional double, I would pass.

IMPs