campboy

What reasonable bridge reason is there for asking to see an opponent's cards after a passout in the first place? Indeed, if there is one then there must also be a reasonable bridge reason for refusing, viz "I wish to avoid you gaining whatever advantage you are hoping to gain from seeing my cards." I do not personally see why either the request or the refusal, if polite, should fall foul of any reasonable interpretation of 74A2, but even if one of them should it is not clear to me whether that would be the request or the refusal.

I don't see why a civil exchange where one player asks for permission to see an opponent's cards and that opponent politely refuses should fall foul of that law.

Ok, I'll have a go. As far as I can see, the only law which gives you the right to see an opponent's cards is law 66D, which begins "after play ceases". Law 22A states that in the event of a passout "the hands are returned to the board without play". Since play does not begin, it does not cease, and so I do not believe I have the right to see an opponent's cards following a passout, even if I am unsure that neither side took any tricks or that no-one revoked.

No. UI only restricts what calls and plays you may make. It is entirely proper to use UI to ensure opponents are correctly informed. In the EBU, which I assume this was, OB 3D7 says precisely that.

I agree with the ruling. In particular, if we read Law 20F5 in full, it is talking about "a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation [...] the player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner's explanation was erroneous". The phrase "in his opinion" is a red herring; while he is required to add that caveat, there is in fact no legal requirement for him to do anything unless he is right in that opinion. Of course, I would warn the player of what her requirements would have been if she had been correct.

The invitation I got said inter alia the following. This year was admittedly unusual in having two pairs (on different teams) playing very unusual methods; the second such pair was playing some sort of intermediate-pass system with a fert and either-or majors!

Or perhaps he realised that partner was right and he had misbid. Of course in general one does not automatically believe a claim of misbid, but here they would have to have significantly more sophisticated agreements than they claim for 4♣ to not be Gerber. Anyway, it is the explanation of 4NT that NS are claiming damage from, not that of 4♣; EW admit that the former was wrong.

I think either "undiscussed" or the "depending on the meaning of 2♠ it could be..." as an explanation of the redouble would have helped. North asked about the redouble, then thought for some time before passing; I imagine she got the impression, as I did, that the answer given was incompatible with 2♠ being natural.

West is to blame for giving NS a chance to get to 2♠; think North is more culpable than South for them not bothering to bid it.

IIRC they had not discussed whether it applied over a weak two, and after the hand decided that it would in future. Similarly, we had only discussed actions after these two-way overcalls on the assumption that we had opened a 1-bid (and only briefly as there were lots of other things in the EW system we thought were more important to discuss a defence to :)).

There are certainly hands where partner needs to bid 5NT for pick-a-slam; if he wants me to choose between 6♠ and 7♠ he can bid 6♥. My priorities here would be i) 6♠ with 3+; ii) 6m with 5; iii) 6NT with a good stop; iv) 6m with 4. So I would go for 6NT.

(I was South) I felt that the explanation of 2♠ was fine, but the problem was the explanation of rdbl ("to play if I have spades"), which made it sound like West did intend it as S+D or C.

Strangely, I might well go wrong the other way round here. In most partnerships* I play pass as forcing after we double an unusual 1NT or 2NT, but non-forcing after we double a natural 1NT and they run -- so if North thought it was natural and South thought unusual we might have the same auction. *with some people I play pass as forcing in either case.

I can't imagine that South believed 4♣ was intended as Gerber. Presumably he suspected that either the explanation was wrong or West had misbid with a long club suit. That doesn't change the fact that he has AI that East thought it was Gerber, and he is entitled to know what agreements they have (and whether they have any) about interference over Gerber. It is not unreasonable on what South has been told to think that West has a poor hand with lots of clubs and East has no defensive tricks, so 5♠ is likely to make and 5♣x is unlikely to be better (assuming it has not occurred to him that 5♣ might be taken as a king-ask). On the other hand, if he thinks East has an ace then it becomes much less likely that 5♠ is making; why should there not be two clubs and another ace -- or club, club ruff, ace -- off the top? If he is told "no agreement", of course, his thoughts will be somewhere in-between.

I would avoid addressing a director by name unless I was certain the opponents knew him also; giving the impression that you are on friendly terms with the director can lead to ill-feeling if the ruling goes in your favour. For similar reasons I would avoid calling players by name as TD.

No they don't, since there is no claim of damage from MI. If North alerted 3♠ because he thought it was a splinter, and South thought it was natural, it doesn't matter which of them is actually right; they are going to bid the same either way.

Why did North alert 3♠? If, for example, he thought it was a splinter, I don't see NS avoiding 6♥ even without the TD error.

My point is that it would cease to matter if people get them right here, as the alert wouldn't be any use. Your partner opens 1♦ (possible canape), doubled by RHO, alerted (of course). Do you ask every time in case this is the one pair in a hundred who play power double and 1NT for takeout? Incidentally I do not find the alerting rules difficult, and didn't find the previous alerting rules difficult either. Unfortunately most bridge players can't be bothered to find out what the rule is, however simple it may be.

The problem with that is that a wide range of bids which do show the suit bid are alertable because of a special meaning. Do you really want to be alerting the following takeout doubles? 1♦ (alert: possible canape) dbl 2♠ (alert: weak spades+minor) dbl 1♦ 1♠ 2♣ (alert: non-forcing) dbl 1♦ pass 3♦ (alert: pre-emptive) dbl

Lol. In the first simulation we had on the TD course, we were given a board with no instructions, and someone was sent out of the room. I counted my cards without exposing any but the top, as I always do, noticed that one was boxed and corrected it without anyone noticing, then had a look at my hand while I was waiting to be told what infraction to commit. John Pain came over and complained that I'd messed up his simulation :angry:

I believe that the cheating method that some people had come up with (hypothetically, I hope!!) under the previous laws was for a teams-of-four match with screens. If you play the board first and oppo have a thin game/slam that makes, sort your cards before passing the board; if not, shuffle. Then if you play the board second you observe whether your screenmate sorts his cards or not.

It currently specifies that they be shuffled instead -- why does that not avoid UI issues? Anyway, while I agree that your 1 and 2 are a correct statement of what the law currently says, I believe that a] it was an oversight rather than an intention to not require cards to be returned face down, and b] it should be corrected in the next laws.

OK, I'll bite. The clause to confirm the blindingly obvious is present in Law 7B2: "each player counts his cards face down". Thus, by your own argument, the fact that the same clause is not to be found in 7C means that there is no requirement for the cards to be returned face down. The two laws, as you say, should be consistent.

If he wanted to change his call because he wass under a misapprehension about the auction, the original call was not unintended (it was what he intended to do when reaching for the bidding box), so law 25B applies -- LHO may accept the change, but if he does not the pass stands and changer's partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one which is suggested by the (unauthorised) knowledge of the attempt to bid 1S (law 16D). If the change is accepted, the fact that he originally passed is similarly unauthorised to partner. I would not say it is impossible to be inadvertent if the calls come from different sections of the box, just very unlikely. Here, however, the player's comment makes it clear that it was not inadvertent.

The 3♣ bid you mention is I believe already considered natural, as a preference bid (OB 5F1a). A simple rephrasing of that clause -- replace "preference bids and raises" with "bids of suits in which partner has shown length" -- might do what you want with minimal disruption.