gordontd

They are not playing standard.

AT

Me neither - unless partner had made a response that showed values.

We need to find out what West thinks is going on, but I'd be concerned about the 2NT bid, since West has the UI that East thinks West has shown spades.

If you come to the Young Chelsea Bridge Club - www.ycbc.co.uk - before the game starts at 7.30pm I'll find you a partner for our Championship Pairs game - IMPs scoring, all bidding systems allowed. The train from Gatwick to Victoria needs its own ticket, but once at Victoria you can buy a travelcard for travel on the underground or on buses. If you buy a six-zone (I think) it'll take you to Heathrow until the last tube train of the night, but I don't think it'll still be valid for night buses.

In the same way that a player who gets fined for slow play, or late arrival, affects the team's score. Being part of a team means you are all in it together.

Sure - cash your top tricks in any order and then realise you're one short. Or following a spade lead, start by unblocking the diamonds from dummy. By the time you've played three rounds it's too late to finesse.

Or just because it doesn't show six in Acol.

Actually I imagine almost all Acol textbooks would regard this as a routine 2♦ rebid - which doesn't promise six diamonds and doesn't deny four hearts.

Not to me. I can't work out what "TM" means (aside from Trade Mark).

I think declarer's intention to play the ♠2 is incontrovertible.

He might have, but I am sure that "always" is an overstatement, because I have seen players fail to notice such mistakes at all during the auction.

L16B1. (a) includes "a reply to a question" in its list of sources of extraneous information partner might make available.

http://www.bridgeace.com/Download/roundtimersetup.exe

Deleted

Directors are there for many purposes, including answering questions and giving rulings. I'm sure your comment was meant tongue-in-cheek, but in case it starts to be taken up seriously may I say that I don't think any good would come of trying to avoid dealing with the questions and ruling requests of those who have a marked interest in the Laws. Better to give them full respect, no matter how tiresome the circumstance might be, and encourage the players in their interest. Today's vexatious litigant might well be tomorrow's fine director or useful committee member.

The information in question derives from the legal calls of the current board, but it's not unaffected by unauthorised information from another source, and so it is extraneous by my reading of the Laws.

I'd ask them to explain which sequences are forcing to game and which can be dropped.

But the knowledge of the auction has been affected by other unauthorised information, namely the announcement.

What you don't say is that you then brought it to my attention (although someone else had already asked me) and my colleagues and I discussed it at some length. It was that discussion that led to the original post of this thread.

So you are of the opinion that the player may not be woken up by the announcement to having misbid?

The difference is that a psyche is deliberate. Two possible reasons: He didn't know that it was correctable, or He thought he was not within time to correct The laws may offer the choice to the player, but if attention is not drawn to the misbid at the table (as it wasn't in the original post), none of the other players would know that the player has chosen not to ask to make a correction. The question is whether the player should continue to bid as though he had made the bid he intended. Certainly in our given case that would preclude him from rebidding hearts unless he had four of them.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that he should be denied a law 25A correction of his misbid. What is being questioned is whether, if he doesn't avail himself of L25A, he can use in the later auction the information that he has misbid - information that came to him as a result of his partner's announcement.

There was some discussion about this in San Remo, and Ton presented a case (without gaining much support for it) where he argued that a call, which was not a mechanical error but due to a brief confusion, was unintended. Presumably there was some purpose to changing the word "inadvertent" in the 1997 Laws for "unintended" in the current ones.

Since ♦K is enough for slam, isn't there a case for bidding 5♣ after 4♥?