[inquiry]

I prefer if the RULES of bridge were applied. If the rules are wrong, I agree with efforts to change them. I find Richards view that Wolff is a radical on target, but in this case, this is like the pot calling the kettle black, because richard has plenty of radical ideas of his own that he is pushing. It is just that he is not nor has ever been in the position of Bobby Wolff to get his ideas as publically exposed.

On this case, the ruling hinges upon one, now, disputed "fact". Wolff claims that the NS pair have psyced 1NT maybe 5 times in the past and use 2♣ run out as a psychic control. And that North KNEW 2♣ exposed a psyche. NS deny using 2♣ as a psychic control (although the bid is not possible) and that they have only psyched it once before.

If Wolff's version of what was discovered in the committee is accurate, then this pscyhic control is illegal brown sticker, and not fully explained, and the ruling seems more or less ok. If the defenders version is true, then this ruling is utter nonsense. In addition, some of Wolff's views on "opponents experience" etc are not defensible (the radical part of the ideas). I am not even sure how a convension disruption law could be worded or enforced, so some of this is indeed radical.

[Gerben42]

I however, cannot understand Wollf. I mean there are like ZERO tournament players who have never had a misunderstanding with their partner. And there are also no bridge players who have never landed on their feet after such a misunderstanding.

Besides, what he is suggesting is simply russian roulette bridge. Understand your partner perfectly or be punished!