[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-November-10, 08:10, said:

In the case of hearts, they would be worse off, as they now wrongsided the contract.

I think Gordon meant "no better off in terms of what information they've conveyed to partner".

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2018-November-10, 08:10, said:

In the case of hearts, they would be worse off, as they now wrongsided the contract.
Although I presume you would allow them to substitute 2D with 4D if that was agreed to have the same purpose (transfer to hearts).

Yes I would certainly allow that. I expressed myself badly when I talked of not being better off: what I should have said is that the player’s partner doesn’t know more about their hand after making the replacement bid (whether it shows hearts or diamonds) than if they had made that same call in the first place.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2018-November-10, 22:05, said:

I think Gordon meant "no better off in terms of what information they've conveyed to partner".

Yes indeed.

[blackshoe]

661_Pete, on 2018-November-08, 04:03, said:

I might also add, that whole session was peppered with 'irregularities' - most of them the oppos' fault. We had a lead out of turn (accepted); a defender played two cards at once (same suit - accidentally - I decided that his partner hadn't seen the extra card so I let him pick it up). And another defender revoked - but corrected it quickly. Again I did not insist on a penalty card (it would have made no difference).

The emphasis is mine. The first thing players should learn about the rules of this game is that one is required to follow suit if possible. The second thing is that players do not make rulings. That's the director's job. If there's an irregularity, call him. If he's playing, and so it takes some time, too bad. Call him. BTW, when I was a playing director, I always dropped what I was doing — unless it was answering an earlier director call — to respond to the call. I really think that's the right way to go, even if it slows things down at my table.