campboy

Here's what might actually happen at the table, if the agreement is descried accurately. Opponents ask about the bid and are told "we agreed to play Widget, but didn't have any further discussion and this sequence hasn't come up before". Now if opponents are familiar with Widget, they will assume C. If not, they will ask "What is Widget?" It seems clear from OP that any answer which doesn't say "Widget means C in this situation" would be incorrect. Now opponents must be entitled to ask this supplementary question -- you cannot get around the requirement to disclose agreements by having discussions in terms they don't understand. And if they are entitled to ask, they are entitled to a correct answer. So they must be entitled to meaning C.

Personally I think the regulations should (in some cases do) require a question here. In most jurisdictions this is a stop bid. There is absolutely no point in the next player pausing for 10 seconds without bothering to ask what the bid means. In the EBU the relevant regulation (WB 1.6.2, extract) says: Not asking sounds like showing indifference to me. I would be much more inclined to adjust the score if East doesn't ask and West doesn't protect.

No it doesn't. The Director is only mentioned in the part dealing with the lead not being accepted. So it merely indicates that the correct procedure with a lead out of turn that you don't want to accept is to call the Director.

I think it is fine for the next hand to just play, since Law 53 A begins "Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead [...]". It is similar to 29A in that it gives the next player an option by using the word "may". (Contrast Law 28B, which is a "this is what we do when that happens" law.)

North shouldn't be able to distinguish 2a from 2b for the simple reason that West should give the same answer in each case. Whatever else may be wrong with North's question it should be clear that he is asking about leads in general and not about this lead in particular. West should mention any way in which their leads are not normal -- even if he knows it does not affect this hand, it may affect the next. I sympathise with your point about 1, but we already require West to know what standard leads are in order to have a properly filled out convention card: "Hatch over or shade this box if using non-standard leads." So allowing North to ask this question doesn't really disadvantage West any more than allowing him to look at the CC.

No, if anything the opposite. So I would certainly have sympathy for the answering side if they gave a correct answer to a specific question, which would not have been an adequate answer to a more general question. This is not one of those situations, though. The response was not correct but incomplete; it was incorrect.

No, I agree with your definition of breaking the transfer. But opener only failed complete the transfer in this instance because he didn't realise it was a transfer. If he had realised, he would have completed it, because that's their agreement.

It doesn't matter what they are currently aware of. After all, if a player misexplains a bid because he has forgotten the agreement we rule MI, even though he was not aware of the correct explanation at the time. And for all we know both partners have read write-ups which specified that C is the correct meaning, but they have subsequently forgotten -- there is nothing in OP which says they haven't. The one thing which I think is clearly wrong is the suggestion that opponents are not entitled to know what Widget is, simply because your discussion went no further than the name. They are entitled not just to a description of your understanding, but to one which uses terms they understand.

I think it has to be C. The laws talk about partnership understandings. Your partnership understanding cannot be A, because one partner has no way of knowing that A is even a possibility. Equally it cannot be B. Meaning C is the only one that both partners could have seen. We aren't told whether the players involved haven't read any write-up of widget (although if that is the case, how do they know anything about it at all?) or they have read one (not necessarily the same one) and both forgotten. I don't think it should make much difference which is the case.

I don't think these are similar at all. Saying a pair don't play transfer breaks usually means that their (explicit or implicit) agreement is to always complete the transfer. A pair who "don't play reverses" still make those bids, just with a different meaning.

I don't see why any of these are a problem with regards to Law 40C3a. That law only covers things that you aren't otherwise permitted to use as an aid to memory, such as taking notes. Using your cards as an aid to memory is permitted; that's why you're allowed to look at them and don't have to remember what cards you hold. The only difference between declarer using the order of his own cards to remind him (say) what the opening lead was, and using dummy's cards, is that the latter may be (is, IMO) a violation of law 43A1c. Now 43A1c only applies to information about the play. So information about the auction (what the contract is) is not covered. Therefore I think 3 is permitted, since it only gives information about the contract. Indeed, we know that putting dummy down so as to communicate information about what trumps are cannot be prohibited by law 43, since it is required (when there are trumps) by Law 41. I agree with Helene about 1 and 4.

No-one's ever going to pass 3♦. I don't see a way for East to make sense of West's bidding apart from "she must have intended 2♦ as a transfer". Once we assume that, East is on a guess whether to bid game or not (West could have a much weaker hand), and the UI doesn't affect the guess IMO. So score stands. I don't like South's question either.

Obviously I meant "It is fairly normal for the player whose turn it is to ask about the call just made, if it is alerted." That is the situation in OP. I agree that if North had immediately asked about the meaning of 2NT, that would be both illegal and unusual. It is unusual for anyone to ask about a call from earlier in the auction, as in the Scottish case.

But it's not the LA which does worst for East which we should be assigning. It's the one which isn't suggested. Here, without the UI partner will have lots of diamonds but with the UI he could just have 4. I would therefore think pass is suggested over 5♦, so if 5♦ is an LA then it is the only legal call and we should assign a score based on that.

I don't think the Scottish trials case is similar at all. It is fairly normal to ask about the call just made, if it is alerted. It is much more unusual to ask about a call from earlier in the auction. What the Blue Book actually says is: "A player has the right to ask questions at his turn to call or play, but exercising this right may have consequences. If a player shows unusual interest in one or more calls of the auction, then this may give rise to unauthorised information. His partner must avoid taking advantage. It may be in a player’s interests to defer questions until either he is about to make the opening lead or his partner’s lead is face-down on the table." IMO the case in OP does not show unusual interest, but your Scottish case does.

The White Book has very detailed guidance on what constitutes a serious error, and by those standards I don't think this gets close to one.

Defence try cashing two spades, presumably, which isn't going to happen in 5♦.

I assume the auction was [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2np3hp3sp3nppp]133|100[/hv] as OP says West bid 3NT, not East. There is certainly nothing wrong with West's 3NT. The problem is that East passed 3NT with 4-card support for the suit West has shown, using the unauthorised information from West's "oh". I agree with Cyberyeti about the adjustment, and would give a PP unless East is very inexperienced, assuming the auction was as above. [edit] I posted only having seen a previous version of Billw's post. Now I agree with him too :)

There's merit in raising diamonds the first time, certainly, but why would you support diamonds the second time? They might be about to miss game, so long as you don't push them into it. The reason I wouldn't bid 4♦ (I think they can make game) is exactly the reason I do want to bid 5♦, so I see no inconsistency.

At this vulnerability with a known 10-card fit I want to bid 5♦ any time 4♠ is making. I think the BIT decreases the chance that 4♠ is making (partner may have some defensive values and be considering a double). So I think the BIT suggests passing (or doubling) over 5♦, and I definitely would not adjust.

I don't think it is legal to let play of the board go ahead and then stop it part-way through. The TD's has the option "before any call is made" to award an artificial adjusted score (16C2(d)). Once she's chosen option (c) and a call is made, she no longer has the option to go back and choose differently. She should get a table result and then adjust it if she deems it necessary.

What normally happens IME is that the pair playing an illegal convention do disclose things properly, because they don't realise the convention is illegal, but it takes some time for the TD to get involved because most of their opponents don't realise it either.

You may (as here) have a bid that describes your hand well if you accept the BOOT, but not if you have to open the bidding. I would question the "legally" too. It is certainly legal to use 29A, because 29A says you "may" do so. On the other hand, as Gordon pointed out, 28B is not an option available to you; it just tells the TD what to do if you attempt to open the bidding. Finally, there is no reason to "use" 28B at all, as you are always better off calling the director and getting the appropriate rectification.

It's true that the topic doesn't really fit this part of the forum, but this is a place where experienced directors are likely to see it, and they're the most likely people to be able to help.

I imagine pran was thinking of part of 15C: "If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction the Director shall cancel the board."