Coelacanth

This requires a specific version of Java to run properly. It is unlikely to be the version that came pre-loaded on your machine (if any). Fortunately, Ping is very responsive and helpful.

Firstly, I agree with most of the other posters that there is not convincing evidence that A was attempting to throw the match. However, I note for completeness' sake: Admittedly there is some ambiguity as to whether this means playing to win the event, or playing to win each deal. The intent is to make clear that deliberately attempting to achieve a poor score on any deal is not permitted. So if this took place in the ACBL and if it was determined that A had deliberately thrown the match, then Team A would be in violation of the Conditions and subject to discipline. In the actual case it appears that neither of those conditions were met.

What? ACBLscore doesn't care whether the boards are hand-dealt or preduplicated. ACBLscore does not (currently) work well with Bridgemates for Swiss teams, but this has nothing to do with how the boards are dealt.

Next time I put down an unhelpful dummy I will say "Sorry partner, I have the hand of the death". Gotta love google translate.

This is an established revoke; no need to involve L14. L64B3 directs that there is no rectification for this revoke. However, L64C directs the TD to assign an adjusted score if the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated.

So the TD ruled that, UI or not, passing was not an LA with this hand vul at IMPs. The question of whether certain LA's might be demonstrably suggested is a more difficult problem. At the table, the East player simply bid 5♦ over 2♠, which proved to be cold for 13 easy tricks on the lie of the cards. Had she bid 3NT or something which led to a diamond slam, there might have been cause for an adjustment, but 640 was probably the worst score possible for EW, so no damage and no adjustment. At the table where I was playing, the auction progressed differently, with N overcalling 1♠ over 1♦. My partner sitting East (a relatively inexperienced player playing in a pickup partnership) simply leapt to 3NT which made 12 tricks thanks to some friendly defense. She asked me what she "should" have done and I suggested that 2♠ would be the normal call. But that just postpones her bidding problem. What call would you make with the East cards after 1♦-(1♠)-2♠-(P) 2NT-(P) or 1♦-(1♠)-2♠-(P) 3♥-(P) ?

ACBL, IMP scoring [hv=pc=n&e=sa6hajdj9432ca753&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1dp2d(See%20text)pp2s(Inquiry%3B%20see%20text)]133|200[/hv] It should be evident from the hand and auction what happened here. EW were not playing inverted minors, but E had forgotten this and thought that 2♦ was strong and forcing. In the passout seat, N asked about 2♦ and was told that it was a natural simple raise. E now committed what I have seen referred to here as unauthorized panic and took a (non-pass) call, and N summoned the TD. North's original request was based on MI; if he'd known E had a strong hand, he would have passed out 2♦. The TD was unsympathetic to this view, given that N had a correct explanation of EW's agreements at the time he made the 2♠ call. The TD now moved to the UI situation. Clearly E has UI from partner's explanation of her 2♦ call. What are E's LAs over 2♠? Crucially, is pass a LA? Are any other LAs demonstrably suggested by the UI? Does the AI from partner's pass supersede the UI? Opinions please.

In looking through the Laws, I can find no definition of what constitutes "normal" play. Yes, 12A2 sets forth a course of action when "normal" play is impossible, but it does not define what "normal" is. Here, we have an irregularity, and a rectification has been applied in accordance with L29 and L30. It seems to me that this is entirely "normal"; it's the expected resolution of an auction which begins with an opening pass OOT. Suppose that, instead of passing, RR had opened 7NT OOT, quickly accepted and doubled by E. Clearly this is not a "normal" result, but would you assign an artificial 12A2 score in place of the score for 7NTX down however many tricks it went down? We now return to our regularly scheduled L23 discussion.

ACBL, matchpoint pairs if that matters South is declarer and leads a club from dummy. East wins the ace as West discards a diamond. Before anyone moves to the next trick West says "whoops, I have a club", corrects his revoke and leaves his diamond on the table as a penalty card. Nobody feels the need to call the TD at this point. East asks the table "I'm on lead, right?"; declarer agrees. East leads something; declarer now asks "wait a minute, he (West) has a penalty card, don't I have some options here?" Director please! How do you rule?

In the event, the South player bid 3♥. The TDs decided not to adjust, but there was some discussion of imposing a pass over 2♠. The consensus was that if the small club had been a spade, this would be a much more difficult ruling, but with a singleton spade a pass was not a LA. On the lie of the cards, both 3♥ and 2♠ are doomed to failure (North has ♠JTxx and a singleton heart; West has ♥AQTx.)

You've probably already worked out what the issue is. The 2♥ call was alerted and explained as DONT, showing hearts and spades. (This pair plays DONT vs strong NTs but has agreed to play natural vs weak; North forgot.) So South has UI at his second turn. Based on the comments thus far, the LAs seem to be 3♦, 3♥, possibly 4♥. Does anyone think Pass is an LA (would North not bid this way with 6=0=3=4 and < say 8 HCP)? Are any of those calls demonstrably suggested by the UI?

This is the hand I pictured when first presented the problem. One of the reasons I posted it was to see what other constructions people could come up with.

I don't play much against weak NTs, and I also realize I didn't list the vulnerability. Let's say you are NV vs vul. I'm wondering about what kind of invitational hand with spades would fail to overcall 2♠ directly over 1NT. I would think that the given south hand is a maximum for the 2♥ call; any bigger hand would start with a double. Thus, for north to be inviting, he probably needs near-opening values. But again, this is probably just my unfamiliarity with tactics vs. a weak NT.

ACBL, Regional Swiss Teams (IMP scoring) This is a UI problem but first, a bidding poll. [hv=pc=n&s=skhk96532daqt6cq3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(12-14)pp2h(Natural)p2sp]133|200[/hv] In balancing chair after LHO's 12-14 1NT, you overcall 2♥, natural by agreement. Partner's 2♠ advance is undiscussed. What do you expect in partner's hand for this 2♠ call? Is 2♠ forcing? What call do you make, and what other calls do you consider?

My intention here was to spark discussion. I didn't change any facts; I withheld facts from the OP so that the discussion of 'do you take into account what the player said he would bid?' could be more general. I didn't want to get bogged down in "2♠ is a terrible call; he's not getting an adjustment from me if he is going to bid like that!"