gordontd

No doubt he'll avoid its use should he ever find himself in such company.

You have a semi-balanced opening hand with most of your high-cards outside your suit. In what way would a "creative" opening of 3C be likely to help you?

What a horrible idea!

Actually it doesn't matter in which order you do it: if it's not demonstrably suggested you don't need to consider the LAs; if there are no LAs you don't need to consider whether it was suggested.

What would 3H now be? Don't think we should give up on slam yet since it's not hard to construct hands where a grand is good.

No. I haven't heard of it being used against an opening one-bid, but in all the other instances it's not strong enough because you shouldn't pre-empt against a pre-empt. I think it's usefull to play it as forcing to game (not that you are guaranteed always to make that game) rather than trying to land on a pin-head in 4D. Otherwise you have a problem when you have a real rock-crusher. Incidentally, against a multi I have the agreement with one partner that an immediate jump to a minor shows that suit and hearts; passing and bidding 4m on the next round shows that suit and spades.

You made it look as though they were jillybean's words, not the director's.

My emphasis. I don't think your conclusion results from your premise.

I don't think anyone has misunderstood this.

Sad news indeed. I last saw him at Bernard Teltscher's 90th birthday party, where he was one of two guests who were older than Bernard. He had a habit of looking at an assignment list and, knowing that he would be overheard by his next opponents, saying to his partner "Ah, I see we've drawn rather a strong team, we'll need to watch our step".

I'm not sure what you mean about "two mistakes". I'd have thought that 2. was actually the most likely explanation. I've seen this sort of thing several times: when someone wants to do something they can't, they think about what else to do, find nothing and then make the prohibited action anyway. Most commonly seen from a declarer who is stranded in the wrong hand and repeatedly tries to lead out of turn.

This sounds like you are talking about Butler scoring, which is generally considered to be inferior to Cross-IMPs for reasons that will be explained if you search for threads on that subject in these forums.

One of the functions of NMF (finding a fit in the other major) is rendered unnecessary in SAYC because it rebids a major at the one level with balanced hands.

I said 98% was a massive underestimate (as would be 99%), not 2%.

I think that's a massive underestimate.

I didn't like them either when they were first announced, because I thought they would produce a lot more Law 64C cases. In practice that doesn't seem to have happened, which suggests to me that the law-makers got it about right.

Going back to it after a couple of hours, it works fine now. Unfortunately I have no solution to offer if anyone else experiences this - except to try again later.

I've just had my new iPhone 6 Plus delivered, and everything has been smoothly copied over from my old iPhone 4, except that now I get an errormessage when I open BBO. "Unable to load a critical file from the internet. Please make sure you are connected to the internet and then click the button below". I've tried deleting the app and downloading it again, but that makes no difference. Any ideas?

How does that differ from showing attitude?

Actually 40%. I must be almost the only person who didn't dislike that law! It removed the undeserved windfall from the NOS without giving the benefit to the OS.

I doubt you'll get your wish: all laws have been moving away from simple, punitive corrections towards restitution that aims to restore matters as closely as possible to where they would have been without the infraction, so the first suggestion would not fit into that general trend. As to the second one, I think UI cases take up more TD time, create more appeals and engender more ill-will than any other group of rulings, so I don't think it would be desirable to increase their application in this way.

It's easy to make an assumption as to what was intended, but not necessarily to be right about it. We tend to assume that a player who had responded 2C to an opening 2NT was trying to respond to 1NT, but I think it's just as likely to have been a mispull or a confusion of the mind. One might consider that if there is no intended meaning of the IB, it encompasses all possible calls and therefore any replacement call would be more precise and should be allowed.

Actually they did. The original wording was considered by many to say almost the opposite of what was intended and so at the last minute, after at least one NBO had made their print run of the new laws books, they changed it. It was perhaps due to that rush that they ended up with something that virtually no-one is happy with.

Although I don't think much of North's bidding, I think with the South hand I would have bid 6H rather than 7C, expecting the North hand to have the red and black suits the other way around.

How many L27D rulings have you seen? Me neither.