gordontd

Don't we have that now with the current Law book? I thought that no Regulating Authority had exercised their right to prohibit enquiries by defenders under the current laws - I know Japan had intended to until England decided not to.

No. Share & Relay does if you don't want to physically share boards.

Especially since she seems to have such a poor appreciation of the way the laws work and of the director's role.

And you play against declarers who do this a lot? And they think it's someone's fault other than their own?

I don't really understand what this means. Why would declarers under-ruff unintentionally? I'm clearly alone in my failure to understand, but it really doesn't make sense to me. :(

There would be little point in giving a fine if it never made the difference between winning or losing a match. The standard fine in IMP-pairs (which is a better comparison with matchpoints than is teams) is 2 IMPs.

You alert defenders' plays of the cards? And consider that the lead of a T normally denying the J is unusual??

I think that's true in general, but less certain in the case of a passed-hand jump (which use pre-dated the wider use of fit-bids). But in any case I think the sixth diamond and reasonable trump support make the fit-bid at least an option on this hand - it certainly seems better to me than hiding the diamond suit altogether.

Indeed. I would have thought pass was a logical alternative to bidding on, and that the pause suggested doubt about 3NT. However I would probably not have rebid 2D, so perhaps I'm not the right person to judge this.

Why does responder need to have a five-card spade suit for this sequence?

I can't imagine not showing diamonds at any point. If I didn't open 2♦, I'd rebid 3♦ showing a fit for partner's spades.

Have you been spending a lot of time with teenagers, Paul? :D I'd pass the first and bid 1♥ on the second, but I see lots of good players bidding 1♥ in situations like the first and doubling on the second.

What did your partner have for the 6♠ bid?

Doesn't Nottingham Club pre-date Precision?

Roman Club and Polish Club are not varieties of Precision , and depending on what you mean by "Big Club" it probably isn't either. I wonder if by "Precision" you mean "Strong Club" (although Roman Club and Polish Club aren't those either)? If you really do mean Precision, you might include Match-Point Precision, Cambridge Precision, Icelandic Precision as well as the Super-Precision you've already noted.

And 59 of them from one person!

No, these are the requirements for when a card must be played, not for when it has been played. L45A tells us: So, the requirement for when a card has been played is that it have been faced on the table immediately in front of the player. The trouble with this is that there are players who don't ever put their cards on the table - they hold them steady above the table. Now, if you are going to insist on the distinction between a card that must be played and a card that has been played, this is going to get very messy indeed. Would there be any problem if in future versions of the Laws they replaced "must be played" with "is considered to have been played"?

So, if he hasn't named it, he hasn't played it?

I think, having read the original post and L45B, that ♣4 had been played. He did pick up the desired card, so he has engaged in the process of playing from dummy's hand. If he had merely (deliberately) touched it, then it would be a card that had not yet been played but that must be played.

My understanding is that there is indeed a difference between these two situations in Law. Note however that a card in dummy must have been "deliberately touched" before it is required to be played.

I think it might be difficult to convince the director that declarer was intending to say "king of diamonds" while the words "four of clubs" were coming out his mouth. Much more likely when the call is simply an incomplete designation of a suit, especially if the player is speaking an unfamiliar language.

Since the original post says that declarer changed his mind, L45C4b would not apply even if he had designated the card rather than playing it.

I'm coming to this discussion rather late, and apologise if what I say has already been mentioned in the various posts I've skipped over. Something that was pointed out to me some time ago by the WBF Chief TD is that Law 50, which contains the words "unless the Director designates otherwise..." places no limit on the TD's discretion to designate otherwise. So, one way to produce a fair result might be to designate that the ♦3 is not a penalty card.

I'm saying that there doesn't appear to me to be any damage. But I certainly wouldn't be adjusting if there had been - South's psyche is a legitimate ploy, and has not been fielded by North.

They seem to have decided it was GF (though I'm not sure why), but they also seem to have decided it was not alertable. That would have been my conclusion too, reading the EBL alerting regulations. Had they not been playing with screens the regulation would have explicitly told them not to alert it.