Trecar

Sorry - a few details ommitted. E/W are playing Precision club. We are in EBU land and event is County pairs for *masters and above. Easts 1♣bid was alerted as 16+

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj52hkt9762d2ct9&w=st9h43dj65cakj843&n=sak43hj85d874cq65&e=s876haqdakqt93c72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1c2h(Alerted%2016%2Bpts)2s3h3sp4cp4dp5cp5dppdppp]399|300[/hv] Before the X North asks about the bidding and is told: 2♠is natural, 3♠shows support, 4♣is cue bid, 4♦ is cue bid, 5♣is cue bid, 5♦is natural to play. After these explanations West asks to see the TD away from the table, and returns to say " partners explanation is incorrect as 2♠ merely shows 5-8pts and does not show ♠". North X then ends the auction After S leads ♥, E draws 2 rounds of trumps, 3 rounds of ♣ ruffing 3rd round with 10♦, re-enters dummy with j♦and runs club making 13 tricks. North feels aggrieved as a) east does not have his 16+ pts, b) easts failure to alert 2♠ surely gives West UI, c)East must surely bid 4♠over 4♣ if he believes East has ♠as he has sub-minimum for his bid and 3 card support. Should the result be adjusted and if so to what?

Yes - He read out Law 25A1 in isolation. He did not read out 25A2 which would have avoided the pit he fell into.

Playing Director found himself in a position where he was anxious not to benefit from unauthorised information in the following situation. Playing a strong Club system, partner (West) opened 1C (Alerted) North overcalled 1H, and East bid 2C (to show 5 controls A=2, K=1). No alert from partner. After a pass from South, West bid 4S. East's hand is 862, A10732, AKT5, 5. East thinks: a) has partner forgotten the system in which case he is expecting to see Clubs, or b) partner knows I have 5 controls and has merely failed to alert the opponents. In the case of a - perhaps East should continue bidding, whilst in the case of b) partner has already taken account of his hand so should pass. Ethically, what should East do and why? West's hand is AKQJxxxxx, x,x,Ax and of course 13 tricks are laydown in Spades.

Our Playing Director made a ruling relating to Law 25, which I suspect is in error. On board 4 (all vul dealer:W) the bidding started: No 1S No 1NT No 2D 2H At this point South was not completely alert and failed to notice East's 2H bid and passed. West also passed. When South awoke (who, how or what wakened him is unclear) he wished to bid, and his partner (The playing TD) allowed him to replace his bid and allowed West's bid to be withdrawn and the auction continued as follows: 3D No 3H No 4D No 5D 3H was alerted as showing a control. The contract made +1, and the opponents felt aggrieved. I am not sure the conditions of Law 25A1 have been met, and indeed, 25A2 seems to cover the circumstances under "...loss of concentration". I feel the director erred, and 5D should not be allowed. Suggestions for any correction welcomed N AK952,A,KT82,A32. E Q86, KQJ876, 96, T5 S 73, 753, A7543, K97 W JT4, 942, QJ, QJ854

I do not understand why, when I try to log into a tourney I get the following message: "trecar:blocked - historical Tourney completion percentage is lower than that required by this tournament" I have NEVER failed to complete a tourney not have I had any IT problems that have thrown me off line. How can I recover my rightful completion status?

For me the evidence seems already sufficient to rule misbid rather than misexplanationte' This together with Aquahombre's first response seems to provide a clearcut reason for not adjusting

Like RMB1, I wonder what the alert does suggest. If no particular course of action it is difficult to meet the requirements to adjust. I also agree with GordonTD that North is clearly warned that they are not on the same wavelength, thus might he have underbid? Forgetting system is not a crime per se, but a pair of this standard should not be alerting over 3NT, thus a disciplinary penalty would both reinforce their need to comply with the rules, and encourage them to play a system that is coomon and understood by them both.

Whereas I am not experienced enough to dispute Bluejacks approach, I do wonder whether unless the sight of dummy makes it apparent that the explanation may be incorrect, the TD's presence at the table before the end of play creates further problems. West would understand that South doubts his explanation even with careful removal in turn of the players, and thus would give him UI. I think that I would advise South to play to the information given, and recall me if he has been the victim of MI. To do otherwise leaves you judging Wests play for UI.

Claimer failed to state "I will cash the diamonds the take the heart finesse and either make or be -3 (or -4?)" He has therefore stated no line of play, and only the delay in acquiesence by N/S has "found" him a successful line of play. I would rule -1 on the strength of Law 70E1.

I agree with Pran Consider Law 62 Correction of a revoke, then if appropriate any penalty under Law 16B. If no PP is appropriate, Dummy should in any event be reminded of his rights & limitations in Laws 42 & 43