gordontd

Yes there are - the mistake that was in fact made in the original post.

I wonder why they didn't just say "forcing to 3NT".

Why not? The result will be cancelled whatever you do.

In certain bits of Europe it would be a routine 2S opener.

Without disagreeing with the first part of your post, I have known a number of good players who play that doubles of suits are takeout of that suit, whether or not the bid shows the suit. It has the advantage of not leaving you at the mercy of your opponents' lack of understanding of their own agreements.

I played 24 boards last night and don't recall anyone at my table changing a call. I think I do it about once every four or five sessions.

My understanding is that the WBFLC deliberately required that cards be shuffled rather than sorted, because of the succeptibility of sorting to cheating through communication with another table.

Somebody playing a match at my club this weekend did that with half the set of boards. I suppose they don't realise how irritating and time-consuming it is for the person who deals the boards by Duplimate to have to turn them all around again before dealing.

He gave a reason why he realised he'd pulled the wrong bidding card.

L23

Yes.

Robin's post above indicates that there might well be value in considering doubles of Pass/Correct bids at the same time.

What's needed is for the L&E to say that the completion of a transfer bid is considered to "show the suit", and all is as we would (I think) wish.

When I play with a stranger with little discussion (which I do a lot), I alert such doubles and if asked say "we don't have a specific agreement, but I believe the normal meaning of this double to be alertable".

There aren't only two types of doubles defined, but there's only one type of double in this situation (of a suit-bid below 3NT) that's not alertable - a take-out double.

L7B2 requires counting one's cards face down. If you haven't checked that they aren't boxed, you can't comply with this without risking exposing a card during the auction period. We expect players to take responsibility for boards that become unplayable when they look at fourteen-card hands that were caused by players at other tables. I find it surprising that the argument is now presented that they are not responsible when they expose their own card(s) needlessly while counting.

I think you're asking the wrong question, or perhaps phrasing it strangely. The question should be "is Pass a logical alternative?" and the answer has clearly been given as "No".

Did he explain why?

Bitter & lime? That really is twisted.

Steroid, as in "Roid Rage".

Except one which denies both minor suit aces, as 4♥ would for many players. Maybe we should be trying to find out what methods they play, rather than trying to foist on them methods we think they should play :)

After one board?

Since you had informed us that all EBU scoring computers had updated versions of both the Orange & White books, I think it's reasonable for a TD to expect to be able to use those. Also worrying because my version is 225 pages of A4 which is quite long enough. Am I missing some? I misremembered - my version goes up to page 477, but that's because I reformatted it to A5 thinking I could staple it into a book. Obviously far too thick for that, and even at only 239 pages of A4 too thick to go into a TD's pocket.

May we see the North & South hands?