gordontd

It used to be popular wisdom, especially in North America, that one should always lead trumps against a grand slam. I wouldn't be surprised if an opponent, especially if not young nor a strong player, led a singleton trump against a grand.

Laurie Kelso, the moderator of the Appeals forum on http://www.abda.org.au/forum/index.php tells me this is not so. He writes: "The expiration period for a Law 25A1 correction remains as per Law (i.e. up until that person's partner subsequently calls). The Australian bidding box regulations do not impinge upon this right..."

Presumably "made" calls are a subset of "selected" calls, which is why I'm not sure that mrdct's interpretation of this regulation is the only one possible.

The easy way to describe the changeover at half-time is that EW pairs drop off the boards they've just played to their team-mates and then go to the table with the NS pair they haven't yet played, .

Then it had nothing to do with "unintended", nor with this thread, and I'm not surprised the appeal was deemed frivolous.

From the way you have described it and the Australian regulations you quoted it would not be surprising for them to have ruled that the bid had not yet been made. Are you certain that the basis of the ruling was a L25A1 unintended call?

I usually find multi players make a point of saying "if it's a weak two" whenever answering questions of this sort, even if the strong option is unlikely or impossible. When were you told that 4♦ "asks for the major"? And why did East bid 4♠ when that is presumably not the systemic bid, if it shows a weak two in spades?

You get to collect 800 when you have a strong takeout double and partner has a penalty pass - which is more likely after you've made one takeout double and partner has responded 1NT, than if you both had balanced-ish hands and you had happened to make a takeout double with yours.

I'd have started with a 1♠ overcall, and would double now (and possibly once more). I'm surprised I seem to be all alone in that.

Usually it's the director who fills out the appeal form, and a verbal request for an appeal (with the appropriate deposit) is normally enough to instigate an appeal. Like you I wonder if there were conditions of contest that cover this.

F1 does stand for forcing for one round, and that's exactly what it means. It's often used in describing a forcing NT, when opener's non-jump rebid is non forcing. SAYC describes a 2/1 response (1S-2C) as promising a rebid, which is not the same thing as forcing for one round, since it follows that opener's rebid may not be passed. Other ways of playing 1S-2C include forcing to 2NT. Each is different from the other, and means exactly what it says.

Maybe South has a reputation for refusing to accept bids out of turn?

I can't think why it was not possible: 3♦ rather than 3♥ would have done the trick.

Having read the early part of this thread a little more carefully I now see we're considering a L27B2 correction, not L27B1, so it's L23 that applies: Either way we can award an assigned adjusted score.

I think he meant L27D:

I had a ruling a few years ago when the auction included: 4NT-5S 5H replaced by 5NT - enforced pass I adjusted to 6NT-1 because there was no other way they could have got to play in 5NT. I don't think the player was doing it deliberately - he just realised they were missing two key cards, and knew that bidding an unbid suit at the 5-level was the way to get partner to bid 5NT to play. I had got all the information at the end of the auction and consulted during the play, so I went back to the table to give the ruling, only to discover that in 5NT they had been allowed to make an overtrick in 5NT when one of the defenders didn't take his ace! However, it did seem to me they would have defended differently against 6NT.

"Here" is where?

No option to lead ♠10?

Just about everyone. I wouldn't expect 4D to show a heart fit.

Actually, originally it was when they opened, partner doubled, they raised and we doubled for takeout. Then it was expanded to include other situations, like the one you describe above, and called by some an "extended responsive double".

Yes OB5G2

:lol:

I think my further reduction of what you wrote above reveals its foolishness, Sven.

No it doesn't. It means they hope their partner will guess correctly, and they'll put up with the consequences otherwise. I often play with the minimum of discussion with my partners (filling in), and when I make a bid that I have not discussed with a partner with whom I have not played before, it is certainly not because we "have an implicit agreement that this call shall have no meaning at all." It is because we have no agreement as to what its meaning shall be.

L40B6(a)