2S was alerted as a transfer to clubs, but the correct explanation should be 2S showed either 11 points or a transfer to clubs. NS got a bottom with 3DXN-2 and requested for an adjustment of the score. He claimed that, with the correct information, he would not have bid 3D.

My ruling is that North would have passed over 3C if 2S was correctly explained, after which East would have bid 3NT as West had shown a maximum by bidding 3C instead of 2NT. I didn't conduct a poll as I thought it's straightforward.

Depending on the lead and play, 3NT might make on a diamond lead but would go down with other lead. However, even with a diamond lead, declarer would still need to find the SQ and play the hand correctly, which I would not assume.

So, taking all factors into account, I ruled the board as 3NTW-1.

Now, some TDs suggest that 3D bid should stand, because “2S transfer bid need not be weak and that North has taken wild and gambling action so probably deserves the score obtained. There is misinformation but the misinformation does not say that East can't have 11 points and Diamonds. North assumed it was weak and made a rash bid.”

I believe that 3D is far from being a wild or gambling action. If West does not include 11 points in the explanation of 2S, East is less likely to hold an invitational hand, so bidding 3D becomes a much safer action.

I am now thinking of conducting a poll to see what North would do over 3C if 2S had been correctly explained. If pass is found to be a logical alternative, then we should allow for the possibility that North would pass over 3C.

Is that the correct procedure? Thanks.

How often do you refuse a claim of "mechanical error"?

I reckon I refuse about half of them.

Sometimes they just don't realise what mechanical error is, but sometimes they're trying to be cute.

A classic example is a mistaken play. In F2F the phsical action of playing a card from Dummy is fundamentally different to playing one from hand. In online, it is essentially the same.

The laws allow dummy's unintended play to be corrected, but not declarer's. In F2F this seems sensible, in Online it is just inconsistent.

Different organisations have varying approaches when implementing this online. In EBU events, no undoes in the play are allowed at all (to my mind depriving Declarer of their rights under 45C4b). Other organisations allow full undoes (treating it as a dropped card).

I know this is an old issue that has been discussed before, and I do not wish to reginite that debate, but it does point to a need for differing rules online. Should we as a body be pushing this as an active issue, or even leading the charge?

I've had a quick look in the Blue/White books and can't find anything to suggest that this is what should happen in this circumstance - could anyone point me in the right direction if that is correct?

There were mitigating circumstances - the individual concerned is quadriplegic and struggles towards the end of an evening. Secondly, this was the first time that I had decided to play 13 rounds of 2-boards rather than just 12 so we were finishing later than usual.

I decided to award a +/= score to each hand for the pair deprived. I thought that fair. Effectively not penalising the early departees because of the mitigating circumstances. Was this "correct"? Or should I have awarded +/- anyway.

It does, however, potentially raise the added problem - what happens if a player disappears near the end due to a technical issue (eg lost internet). Should the same adjustment be made?
IanC

S 832
H J76
D KQ76
C AK6

Discussion then focused on whether we would adjust if South bids 4H and it makes exactly or if South passes and 3H makes exactly. :)

BBO has been a great 'gift' for many for many years and whoever started it and gave it for free for all those years has my admiration and gratitude and deserves recognition for what he/she gave to so many. I went on there and still do to improve me card play not just by playing but by watching others and that has been good for me but I can also see that there are LOTS of people who are on there all day and every day no doubt to fill their empty days in later life and BBO has filled a massive need there.

What is happening, when is it happening and how much it is going to costs? It looks like FREE ends in 17th August and after that it's $10 a month. Will I pay it - I don't know, it's not that $10 a month is going to cause a blip in my bank balance it's just . . . . I don't know!

I had an interesting situation some years ago at Brighton when a South player was declarer and called me, alleging that West, on lead, had held CQ in such a position that his partner could have seen it. As West was denying that he had led CQ, I was kneeling down by the corner of the table between South and West, and I unintentionally caught a glimpse of the West hand and saw that he didn't have CQ.

North East South West
Bid Pass Bid Pass
Pass Bid

North then calls director saying that West hesitated. Opponents deny this although, looking at West's hand, it does look as though West had something to think about. No-one had previously suggested that there had been a hesitation.

I'm concerned that North's director call opens up opportunities for gaming or even gives UI to their partner - specifically because the call is from North before South has bid.

How should I deal with this? Is there advice I could give to players to avoid this happening in the future?

Let's say we do this only with precisely 1435 shape. So our 1st seat pass shows either a normal pass or up to 14 HCP with precisely 1435. Certain passed-hand sequences such as 1S:2C show the stronger type.

I believe this is a permitted agreement: the Blue Book says that a pass must not "usually show any values", but here the stronger type represents less than 1% of passes.

My bigger concern is how you would go about disclosing this. Clearly opponents need to know about this agreement, but I'm anticipating that it would be quite difficult to do this effectively. I would particularly want to avoid:

• Confusing the opponents into thinking they need to treat this much differently from a normal pass; or
• Being able to give a good explanation, but only in a way that takes a significant amount of time out of each round.

I would definitely mention it in the system summary that we give at the start of each round. Having done that:

• Should a 1st seat pass be alerted?
• What do you think is the best way to describe this agreement? I find it hard to think of something that is concise without being in some way misleading. (In particular, I don't want to mislead opponents into thinking that the strong option is some weird thing that they need to adjust their bidding for.)

Under 15B3, since all contestants have been deprived of the opportunity to earn a good score, should they not all be awarded Av+? (Or possibly Av if everyone was just slow).

Does it say somewhere in the laws that the director can change the movement once the event has started?

For those whose first reaction is "it doesn't matter", it does if there's a half table, or any event where boards are not all played the same number if times.

The White Book 2026 should be available on Friday and will be effective from 1 August 2026 (Saturday). There are some changes of wording to anticipate the planned changes to the Blue Book. The other changes are mainly saying things we meant to say - some relating to screens and online games.

The player on lead asked "Any questions partner" - and declarer objected.

Declarer stated that the person on lead cannot ask their partner as this was UI since partner must carefully avoid making use of unauthorised information.

Law 20F2 states that "Either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction..."

It doesn't say anything about asking the person on lead if they have any questions.

Law 20G2 furthermore states that "A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to benefit partner"

Since asking the question "Any questions partner" is for the sole benefit of partner it presumably barred.

In other words you cannot wake partner up to the fact that it might be to their benefit to ask questions about the auction.

Any thoughts?

15B2 says the score stands.

What is interesting here is that neither pair was scheduled to play the boards at any point during the session.

15B2 makes no reference to that, and I can't find anything that says it matters, but it somehow feels different.

Any observations?

It strikes me that it would be very simple for the design to have a black dot screen behind the red but not behind the green, but how would we even raise it with a manufacturer ?

BBO does not allow this.

Appreciate your comments please- thanks.

I can (and do) take a board off them, but that can be unfair to whoever they're playing.

I can of course award 60/40, but I need evidence that one side is at fault, and "it's always you" doesn't really count. If I instead award 50/50, their opponents will often (quite rightly) complain.

So I wondered if this would work as a condition of contest:

"Any pair consistently in the last 5% to finish a round will be deemed to be at fault if a board is taken away in any round through slow play, unless the Director determines otherwise."

Thoughts?

It is clear that an obviously fair solution for the situation (boards played a different number of times) does not exist, but we must use something.

In the literature, there is an assumption that "all boards should count equally". This sounds a good principle, but the actual effect is highly dependent on how you do the counting and what equally means. Leaving that aside, I looked at why we use Neuberg.

The Neuberg paper by Max Bavin (https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/neuberg-formula.pdf) takes as read that a top on a board with 11 results is better than a 65% result on a board with 101 results.

That is not at all self-evident to me.

What I am interested in is doing a simulation to establish how likely each case is. To do that I would need historical information as to how likely a given pair is to beat another given pair on any particular board.

Does anyone know if such a dataset exists? (clearly it will exist in the various P2P uploads to the EBU, but whether it is available and extractable is a different proposition).

Or maybe someone has already done such a simulation?

It's not evident from the scores when this happened, and none of the players can remember their hand on the board.

Is there anything we can do? Does it matter too much if we don't do anything?

Supplementary 1:
Now a player who played the board about 2/3 way through the event does remember, and it had been fouled by then. Does this make any difference?

Supplementary 2:
In this case only the North and South hands have been swapped, but it's still not possible to tell when it happened. Is this fouled "too much" so that we cancel all play of the board?