gordontd

I think this is the reason for WBF cards not being allowed in most events - if you look at a card that's in a format you're familiar with, you can get the information you want quickly and easily. If it's in an unfamiliar format - no matter how clear - it's harder and slower to find what you want.

After partner has rebid 3♣?

Start with 1♠ and rebid 3NT.

Haven't we already seen this hand in another thread? Why has South bypassed ♦?

XX usually suggests playing in 2♣XX

This seems wrong to me. Perhaps you meant to say: "Generally it would not be safe to assume that we have a stopper in spades as a 1NT opening doesn't require one."?

I think this is quite an overstatement. The original advice that was given to TDs was that they only need find out what the player intended if s/he was interested in taking advantage of L27B1b. I understand that advice is not now considered current, but it hasn't been replaced by anything official (as far as I am aware), and it's still the advice that any EBU or EBL TD will encounter if they search on the web for help.

If you are getting forced, consider discarding losers, rather than ruffing in the long hand, until you can take the ruffs in the short hand.

Just think - we could have avoided all this simply by clubbing together to buy him a new keyboard.

That's the explanation - our screens don't extend past the corners, which is why it didn't make sense for me. Thanks!

I don't understand this comment - doesn't the strength of the spade suit make it more attractive to treat this as a genuine suit and therefore double, rather than less attractive? Ruffing with the ace of trump is bad, m'Kay.... Not if it promotes the Q, J, 10, 9 in the other hand.

Do we know anything about EW's cue-bidding style?

I understand boxing in. My question meant "how does it save space to rotate some tables so that they are not boxed in?"

How does that work?

I have a set of cards with instructions that I put out on the tables telling them when they are going to be bumped, and I tell them it's their responsibility to ensure they leave the table and return at the appropriate time.

Do you mean that you knew that's what she intended, or just that's what she said she intended?

This sounds like it would have the desired effect, but I'm a bit concerned about whether the wording of L12A1 allows us to do this: The problem I see is that both sides are offending. While we might draw a distinction between the offence of the lead out of turn and the offence of dummy illegally drawing attention to the irregularity, the second cannot happen without the first and so it's hard to consider the pair who led out of turn as non-offending. However, even if we ignore that, there's a further problem in that adjusting the score for one side (only) is not providing indemnity to the other.

During a hand a defender leads at her partner's turn to lead. Dummy says "it's not your lead". What do you, as director, do?

By asking questions, and deciding if it was unintended. It might be easy, if for example they pointed at a different card from the one the called for, or if they were playing in a language they weren't familiar with, or it might be harder to determine.

That's correct. I think they are wrong. The fact that the law exists means there must be circumstances in which it applies. I have - I once called "diamond" when I meant "club" because I had a migraine coming on. Eventually the director accepted it and allowed the correction.

Fred published a series of articles describing a similar philosophy for 2/1 but using a different solution (2NT from memory but it has been a while). I think it is still available on BBO using the Windows client version. You might find it is just what you are looking for! Yes, it was 2NT that showed a balanced 13-15. I played it for some years with Bergen & Jacoby, and just shifted all the other single-jump responses around to make them fit in.

I had long given up on discussing anything further with him in this thread, since he doesn't seem open to discussion, but against my better judgement I'll have one last go. Back to the beginning of this thread, a 3♥ bid in response to the 2NT overcall would not only show a preference for hearts rather than diamonds, but also for spades rather than diamonds. With a mediocre 1435, would you not bid 3♦ rather than 3♥? And if so, is not the reason because you do not want to play in 3♠ or 4♦? That an insufficient artificial call may convey no more information than a sufficient artificial call does not make it a natural call.

What does this have to do with pass/correct responses?

Of course it can: it shows information about the suit that you've chosen not to bid (usually you prefer the suit you haven't bid, rather than the one you have bid).

I would have thought that if it is held deliberately so that no other player can see it, it doesn't meet the requirements of (b).