campboy

If you play a 12-14 1NT, what does "weaker than 1NT" mean? Less than 12, of course. A 13-count isn't "weaker than 1NT" just because there are some stronger hands that would open 1NT. Similarly a hand isn't "weaker than pass" just because there are some stronger hands that would pass. What is forbidden by (b) is agreeing to open (at the 1-level) some hands which are too weak to pass. Unless your pass shows values, this isn't an issue. (a) disallows passes which include some always-strong options, even if there are alternative weak options. But "0-14 with clubs" is a single wide-ranging option, not a strong option and a separate weak option.

I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that 99+% of people who play 1m as "at least three" open the longer minor, and so if no more information is given that is what opponents will assume.

That's such a basic error I'm shocked that any director could make it. The whole point of Law 23 is that you don't need to decide whether the infraction was deliberate.

It's difficult to see what the meaning of 2♥ can be (from West's point of view) except "even though you want to sign off in diamonds, I want to try for game". The only question is: what sort of game-try is it? Should West expect strength or weakness in hearts? It's unlikely that they have any specific agreements about this case to tell us the answer. However, it's basically analogous to a super-accept of a transfer (meaning "even if you wanted to sign off, I want to try for game"), and so their agreements about that situation are the best guide we have to what sort of hand East should have in this situation. I don't think I'd consider anything other than 3♦ no matter what sort of game-try I interpreted it as, though.

I'm coming to this thread late, but I agree with Lamford.

This is not the normal reason for making a call about which there is genuinely no partnership agreement. What commonly happens, especially at matchpoints, is that a player has a choice between making an undiscussed call which could be interpreted in two or more ways (and it's a pure guess between them), one of which describes his hand, or making some other call which definitely doesn't describe his hand. He believes that he is going to get a poor score if he doesn't manage to describe his hand, so it is better to make this call and hope partner guesses right than to just give up.

The player's hope does not need to be disclosed. In the situation you describe what needs to be disclosed is the related agreements and partnership philosophy. But it is quite possible that partner can remember (and properly disclose) all these things, and yet not be sure what bidder intended.

I've certainly taken it several times, and IIRC not only when a player suggested it. But this is only appropriate where there actually is an agreement that bidder's partner can't remember. A TD will not get bidder to say what he meant when there is no agreement.

If there was a genuine hesitation before doubling (i.e. not just 10s or so for the skip bid) then that suggests East has either minimum values, or an off-shape hand which might have trouble coping with certain responses. Both of these suggest keeping the bidding low if possible. So I'd be more worried about (say) a 2S bid where 3S would have been a logical alternative. I don't think either passing or bidding is demonstrably suggested, so I would not rule that a player who bid should have passed or vice versa. Certainly with the hand you describe, passing is the only plausible option so is completely fine. What you say about being required to pass in some circumstances also sounds very wrong to me. In order for a TD to rule that you should have passed, passing needs to be a logical alternative. It normally will not be on this auction (takeout doubles are expected to be taken out). You never have to do something ridiculous just because partner hesitated.

I don't think that question really settles the matter. Obviously if 3♥ is your only way to show long hearts, it shows long hearts. But if you have another way to show long hearts (by passing partner's heart bid, as here), then maybe it doesn't any more. Of course, the following is even less relevant: At the risk of stating the obvious, if you've already shown a balanced hand you don't really need a bid to show lots of hearts. That's basically the reason transfer breaks show support after a no-trump opening: because the natural meaning doesn't make sense. If the natural meaning isn't impossible (eg after a balanced-or-natural 1♣ opening and a transfer response) then that's a completely different story. Anyway, I suspect both interpretations are logical alternatives here. But the only reason a FNJ is even plausible is that partner could have passed if he wanted to play in hearts. It's nothing to do with being a "transfer break"; 3m would clearly be natural NF.

As a professional mathematician I do in fact know what "corollary" means. The point is that this can't be logically inferred, so none of "corollary", "proposition" or "theorem" are appropriate. What you have inferred is the converse of the law as written. This is not a valid logical deduction (see affirming the consequent).

No, the converse (not the corollary, which means something quite different) is simply that this law does not bestow the status of a spectator on anyone who is also a player. That is a good thing, because otherwise any player at the table would have the status of a spectator. But if someone actually is a spectator, they don't need to be given the status of a spectator. "Spectator" is not defined, so takes its normal meaning.

No, I'm not. Did you read what I wrote at all? Law 76D does not apply to players (or tournament officials), but that doesn't matter. Law 76D just says that in certain cases people have spectator status even if they're not actually spectators. But the Chimp actually is a spectator because he's spectating, and therefore doesn't need a special law to give him spectator status.

Law 76D says "Any person in the playing area, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently." This is not a definition of "spectator". Indeed, it does not say that such a player is a spectator, merely that he has the status of one. In other words, for the purpose of this law, random people in the playing area are to be treated as spectators even if they are not actually watching the game. Anyone who is actually spectating, like the Chimp, simply is a spectator with no need of any extra law to give him the status of one.

No-one is suggesting that the OS get to say whether their opponents' attention has been drawn to the irregularity. If one of the NOS says that his attention has been drawn to the revoke, then it has. But if even NOS themselves don't think their attention has been drawn to a revoke, then it hasn't been. As others have pointed out, "having none, partner?" can't draw attention to the revoke, because if it did dummy wouldn't be allowed to say it.