campboy

Well, that's not quite what happens. We allow West to play low (using the AI that his partner is required to play the queen), but then we adjust on the basis of what might have happened if East had not had a penalty card in the first place. In particular, we will be considering the likely result if West played a high card but East was not required to drop the queen under it; this will generally be more favourable to EW than the result of forcing West to crash his partner's honour.

And then the score will be adjusted under Law 50E3. What's the problem?

I agree with gordontd and ahydra. West does not have a legal opportunity to play the ♠J (or anything else) before South chooses an option, since that would breach 50D2.

Yes, I agree. When I said "presumably a spade lead was clear" what I really meant was "it sounds likely there was no LA to leading a spade, and assuming that was the case...". Of course we'd need to see the full hand to be sure, but knowing OP I'd expect him to be aware of this and have mentioned other plausible leads if there were any.

I don't think there is a UI problem here. Presumably a spade lead is clear on this hand, and once the player has decided to lead a spade it is AI that partner will be forced to play the queen on this trick. So the player is allowed to lead a low card. The TD may then decide to adjust the score under 50E3, however.

Exactly. If partner thought we were missing a keycard he would have acted immediately. He did not act immediately (but this fact is UI). So the UI suggests we aren't missing a keycard. This means 7♥ is suggested by the UI over 6♥.

I don't, as it happens, but clearly you do so I was attempting to address how I would rule if I did consider 7♥ an LA. This makes no sense to me. People do not tend to make grand-tries "immediately". I could believe a slow 5♥ might have been intended as a grand-try (though even that is a stretch), but not a fast 5♥. It is only the UI that makes a grand-try even remotely plausible, so I'm certainly not allowed to act as though that's what partner intended.

Yes, I did. Isn't that the opposite of what you are arguing? I think 7♥ is suggested over 6♥ (which I believe is an LA). I would therefore disallow 7♥ (if successful) but allow 6♥ (since I don't think it is suggested). If partner has misread the auction or simply intended to bid 6♥, I expect the IB to be in tempo. It wasn't, and that suggests it was more likely to be a grand-try or an "oh dear we're off two keys" panic bid. That is why I think 6♥ is the non-suggested LA.

I meant that his earlier 4NT bid would have been a mistake if he now wants to sign off in 5♥. I prefer not to play for that, but you may be right that it's more likely. Again, though, it seems to me that #2 is more consistent with the BIT than #1 or #3, so we should assume one of those after a slow 5♥ (if it is an LA to do so).

As I see it, there are four possibilities for partner's intention: 1. He thought I responded 5♣ or 5♦, and intended to sign off below slam; 2. He knows I bid 5♠, but still intended to sign off below slam; 3. He intended to bid a slam, but got confused; 4. He intended some sort of grand-slam try. As I said earlier, I don't consider #2 worth catering for, as it requires partner to have made two mistakes rather than one. But of the four options, I think #4 is the least likely to be bid in tempo, so the UI suggests 7♥ if anything.

FWIW I would never pass after an in-tempo 5♥. We know partner's made one incorrect call (the IB), but I see no reason to play for him having made two.

The EBU does -- it's not allowed at level 4. (You could play it as any combination of meanings which show five spades, with or without strong alternatives, or any combination of 5-4 hands which don't include hearts, again WOWSA.)

I did not say I would have ruled that 2♦ was intended, just that this TD appeared to have ruled that way. And assuming it is the same TD who is present at the end of the hand, I see no reason why he would not continue to believe the same thing.

We are told that South said he intended to open 2♣. That is a fact. But the TD has to establish whether South actually did intend to open 2♣. This is a matter of disputed fact (it was certainly disputed by West), and so he rules on the balance of probabilities. Now I might well have ruled differently to this TD in the first place, but whatever the TD decided at that point about South's true intentions, the only piece of extra information he has at the end of the hand is that he can now see South's cards. That information doesn't seem to help SB's case, since it is consistent with 2♦ being intended.

If the TD has to rule on a UI case, say, and he misjudges, then he (or an AC) can give an adjusted score under 16B, or change the misjudged adjusted score he already gave to a different one. The TD error did not affect the table result. Here, it is different. The TD's potentially incorrect judgement was in not allowing the change, and it is too late to get a normal result without that error. Also, he cannot use 25A to give an adjusted score of any sort, since it does not say he can. So in order to adjust the score he would have to use 82C.

The distinction is that while he did not intend to lead out of turn, he presumably did intend to lead that card (in turn) so the card itself was not unintended. Here, in the same way, South clearly didn't intend to open a weak two in diamonds, but the question is whether he did intend to open 2♦ (albeit with some other meaning), or whether he intended to make a different bid but the 2♦ card ended up on the table. The TD appears to have decided that, on balance of probabilities, the former is what actually happened (which seems quite plausible to me). If he subsequently comes to believe he was wrong then he should rule director error, but I don't see why he should change his mind.

East has UI, since the explanation of 2NT was not the one he was expecting. West also has UI, as you say. We are told 2NT is GF enquiry over 2♥, though, so I expect it asks about shape and 3♠ is just the system bid here, with pass being 4-4 (of course we should check if called to the table, but here we can only speculate).

Also, I'd be interested to know whether anyone would rule differently depending on whether bidding boxes or spoken bidding were in use.

That makes sense, but you seem to have changed your position on whether or not it is affected by UI since the previous post I was responding to. If it's unaffected then of course the player can use it. My view is that it is affected by UI for the purposes of this law, but I could easily be wrong about that.

Why do you think the 2♥ bid is still AI? Law 16A1a (which you previously quoted) doesn't say so, since it only covers information unaffected by UI from another source. So which law does?

I'd bid 4♠ but would consider bidding some number of clubs.

That depends on how you interpret "unaffected by unauthorized information from another source". Here East is only aware of the relevant information because of West's explanation, so I'm inclined to think it is affected by that UI.

Yes, I said "LOOT" in a previous post when I meant "OLOOT". It is specifically OLOOT where the EBU exam requires you to give the ruling from memory.

True, although I would prefer to say "without opening the book".

Evidently not [edit: I mean evidently they think it doesn't], since a call out of turn is not automatically part of the final exam. However, the two are completely different. Every time you have an opening lead out of turn, the spiel is exactly the same, but there is a lot of it; the difficulty is in not missing anything out. For a COOT there are several possibilities, but the ruling in each case is shorter; the difficulty is in finding the right bit.