campboy

The relevant regulations are as follows (White Book, p11). So there are two situations where a player can be deemed to have passed: if the opening lead has already been made, or if the player was in the pass-out seat. Neither of these apply, so advancer has not yet passed.

I'm not talking about right to know so much as right to ask. If East did reject the BOOT and the auction proceeded p p 1NT, he would only be permitted to ask about the meaning of 1NT (or alternative calls) opposite a silenced partner. In the unlikely event that NS have a specific agreement about this, South can describe that agreement. If they don't, however, the correct answer is going to be along the lines that barmar describes.

It is still true that at no point in the auction so far was pass-pass-1NT available. Yes, it might subsequently have become available, but even if it did it would be a third-seat 1NT opposite a partner who was silenced throughout, which probably has a different meaning.

During most auctions you can, since if an opponent has either opened the bidding or had a chance to do so and passed then you can ask about alternative calls he might have made (i.e. opening bids). However, part-way through an auction where your side has opened in first seat I don't think you're entitled to ask opponents about the opening bids they never had a chance to make. I think asking about opponents' system (basic or otherwise) at the start is covered by 40A1b.

Wher do you get that idea from? The phrase "basic system" does not appear in the laws. It only appears in the Blue Book in the context of when you're permitted to play two different basic systems (and the index). It only appears in the White Book in the description of "EBU simple system". What is true is that this information will appear on N/S's convention card, and East is permitted to look at that. Had he done so, instead of asking, he wouldn't have confused South into changing his announcement and there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

If all calls were "available", irrespective of whether the opponents are kind enough to give you the opportunity to use them, the word would add nothing to the law, so why is it there? What the law actually says is "relevant alternative calls available that were not made", and the only plausible interpretation of this I can think of is that it is talking about relevant calls which the player had an opportunity to make, but chose not to. As for your other example, you are certainly allowed to ask about the 1♦ opening, which was an available alternative to 1♣. In particular you are entitled to ask which balanced ranges it includes, and, where this overlaps with those included in 1♣, how opponents might decide between the two possible openings.

As for the "turn to call" business, I don't see anything in the laws to say that it can only be one player's turn to call at once. East can call now and it will be considered to be in rotation; I think that makes it his turn to call regardless of whether it is also someone else's turn to call.

No it wasn't. In order for North to be able to open 1NT after two passes, there have to be two passes in front of him. At no point was that the case. Had the auction developed normally, a third-hand 1NT might have become available, but equally it might not, and it certainly hasn't done so yet. I agree that the laws ought to allow East to ask about pass-pass-1NT, but I don't believe they currently do.

I think the key word is "available". At no point in the auction was a 1NT opening after two passes available, so it doesn't seem to matter how relevant it is. Anyway, E/W have been correctly informed -- pluperfectly, Victor Mollo might have said, since they appear to have more information than they are, strictly speaking, entitled to. They were told that a first seat 1NT would be 12-14 and a third seat 1NT would be 15-17. They have just as much chance as South does of working out which one of those North thought he was opening. If South had suggested to East that North thought he was opening a third-hand NT then that might constitute MI, but in fact it was East who suggested it to South.

No, you didn't. This was a change made when the Blue Book came out. They also added announcements for the opening 2NT itself, and for short 1♣/1♦ openings.

All the information South has about North's hand derives from an illegal call that was accepted, and it is not affected by UI from anywhere else. So it is all AI.

I don't think that it is normal to rule on the basis that South knows there has been a misunderstanding here. We rule on the basis of what might have happened without the infraction. The infraction is the MI, so we think about what might happen if South never received misinformation, rather than what might happen if there was MI that was immediately corrected. There are some situations where we do assume NOS know there has been a misunderstanding, though. OS are required to correct the MI before the opening lead (if they will be declaring). If that doesn't happen, then there are two irregularities. We can adjust based on the first irregularity (NOS would do something different if they had correct information throughout), or based on the second irregularity (if NOS had been told at the end of the auction they would have known both the correct information and that there had been a misunderstanding, and they might use this information to change their final pass, or choose the opening lead).

Yes, Blackshoe's quote is from the ACBL bidding box regulations, so his ruling is correct. In the EBU the equivalent regulation reads "A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent", so the ruling would be different.

It's theoretically possible, but I doubt anyone plays a natural-but-alertable meaning here.

Ok, here's my attempt at this question. Suppose we accept that South's double was indeed psychic. I don't think the UI that South didn't ask suggests much at all, since presumably he assumed the alert meant it was artificial. But was the psyche fielded? I don't think North's pass is particularly unusual, and IMO the psyche was fielded if he didn't lead a diamond, and not fielded if he did.

You certainly can rule that there is sufficient evidence of a CPU if South has psyched/misbid, but insufficient otherwise. Indeed, it is difficult to see how you can ever rule there is a CPU based on North's actions alone, since CPU has a P in it.

While this isn't the same as the case the L&EC considered, I would think it clear that there is at least as great a conflict of interest. That passage is just an example of a situation where a different TD should attend (if practical); it is not attempting to be exhaustive.

Is Walsh 1♦ even alertable? It certainly wasn't under the old OB.

Did North lead a diamond?

Except UI laws will mean that when the penalty card clarifies an ambiguous signal, partner will be required to interpret it wrongly. I can certainly see an argument for keeping the can't-play-a-different-spot rule (mostly, that it reduces the need for TD judgement about whether UI has affected the play). But I don't think the advantages are worth the extra complexity.

The place to deter revoking is in the revoke laws. Major penalty cards can occur in lots of other ways, such as honour cards being dropped. Lead restrictions on partner. (I would get rid of the restriction about not playing a different small card too.)

I agree with this but not this since it's just as easy to think of situations where a player has to do something ridiculous with his penalty card before his partner ever gets on lead. Personally I think the problem is the requirement to play the card at the first legal opportunity. I see no reason for this, and it is the source of all the complications. If it wasn't required, then everything about the penalty card could be UI. With the consideration of UI and lead options it will still generally be advantageous to play the card as soon as possible, but usually not to the extent of underruffing or discarding winners.

Once all four hands had been returned to the board (62D1). If the revoke had damaged NOS then they could still get equity restored up to the end of the correction period (64C), but that isn't the case here.

No, takeout is the non-alertable meaning in both seats. BB 4H5: This is because of the definition of "shows the suit bid" in 4B2: "it is natural, or shows willingness, in the context of the auction, to play in the suit, or it has been followed by two passes".

That's not the law I was talking about. The problem is law 62B, which says "To correct a revoke the offender withdraws the card he played and substitutes a legal card." But if this offender withdraws the card he played he doesn't have another card to substitute, unless he also withdraws the card he played to trick 13. In practice this is how we interpret it: he withdraws both cards and swaps them over. But that is not what the law says.