c_corgi

Can I ask for keycards without getting too high?

It sounds like this argument was presented with the intention of blaming you for the silly result rather than partner forgetting the system. It certainly didn't originate from trying to follow the rules. Partner could have had QT9xxx clubs and not be worried about the trump suit opposite a limit raise. You were quite right to respond to keycard: in fact you were ethically obliged to do so.

When both South and West think it has. Given that the director has apparently condoned it, I don't see how it could possibly still be South's turn.

I think it is West's turn to call. This is because South considers that his enforced pass has been effectively made, West appears to have accepted this and considers it his own turn, and the director has not contradicted them. IMO Law 28 is to clarify that West can call before the enforced pass without penalty, not to determine whose turn it technically is. The contrary implication is probably because this situation was not considered when writing it. I don't consider the director to be responsible for East's error and I am certainly not going to go out of my way to award both sides Ave+ when they are both offending. Iviehoff's reasoning regarding L30A/B seems very sensible.

Perhaps that is the best approach. You can certainly rule director error after that, even if you are not technically wrong.

I need to think of a way to pretend that I read this before writing post #6 :P

Obviously it depends on the class of defenders involved, but the location of the high cards and the winning actions look marked. From the description of his actions in the OP, East seems reasonably astute, revoke notwithstanding. 8 tricks would be the majority of my weighting unless E/W tend not to count cards.

I very much agree in principle, but in this case it doesn't seem certain that incomplete information has been given: the response could simply have meant "2 aces", without reference to the queen of trumps or indeed any other card. What would be the outcome if the potentially misleading question had been in response to complete disclosure?

I think that whether it was forcing or not forcing should have been specified in the explanation. However, it is not clear to me that 1C being non-forcing would affect either of your stated reasons for passing.

East's "pounce" has made it rather difficult to establish declarers original intention. If East had waited until dummy had moved the 8 into the played position, then declarer would either have been content, or said "Not that one!" and all would be clear. If dummy did something other than move the 8 into the played position I would have little sympathy with N/S. Anyway, I ask declarer what he was doing and why he used that form of designation. Unless he is extremely convincing I rule in favour of East. Perhaps one of the "{East} Could have known that his behaviour might jeopardise opponents rights" type clauses applies to this situation? Very true. Steady on...

Bridge is very much open to this sort of abuse. There is no practical solution and assuming people will be basically honest is as good a rule of thumb as any. Attempting to secretary-bird ones way to a ridiculous redoubled contract with overtricks against innattentive opponents certainly doesn't address the problem you describe.

Does East really think that when South holds a pointed 2-suiter worth two bids in this auction that she will try to declare in one of them rather than defend? Maybe the onus is not on East to clarify whether North thinks "natural" means "no interesting understanding here" or whatever else may have gone wrong, but a question along the lines of "So South is showing spades and diamonds?" would have cleared it up. Here it looks as though East has been content to receive MI and pursue a double shot, which IMO should be discouraged.

If declarer shows his hand and claims, is it not reasonable to assume the defenders will play double-dummy accurate from that point on?

"... without assistance gained through the infraction..." is indeed a peculiar phrase. It doesn't say "... without assistance gained through the infraction coupled with a correcion as per 27B1..." The infraction is the insufficient bid rather than the correction. Since the only advantage to be gained through the infraction itself is the information that the offenders hand is more likely to resemble the insufficient bid than the correction, it is strange that this is not dealt with by the UI laws. It seems the intent is to reduce the impact on the offenders, so that they are less constrained than if 16D were in force. They are able to use what would have been UI if 16D were in force to avoid a silly disaster, but they are not allowed to use it to score a goal. So: This is a "goal", which the offending side would not have scored without assistance gained through the infraction. NOS recieve rectification. As above, but advancer has only 8-9HCP: The offending side are permitted the auction (2S) 2NT (P) P when it leads to +120, even though they would not be if 16D were in force (advancer must raise). They have used assistance gained through the infraction, but have only to control the random consequences of the infraction. They have scored a "goal", but through 27B1 rather than the infraction. If they were only making 6 tricks in NT, conceding -100, they are permitted to use the infraction to avoid conceding -500 in 3NTX. I am not sure I advocate the above approach, but I can't see how else the laws make sense. But like Agua and Barmar, I see no reason to punish the offending side for trying to avoid gaining assistance from the [infraction coupled with 27B1 procedure] by raising to 3NT on 8-9 knowing they were facing 12-14 and getting a lucky +600.

I don't think he will cash it at all, but since he thinks it is a winner it would be reasonable to do so. One of the moments he might choose to do so is trick 11, which is one of the moments where it leads to 1 down. I don't know if he thought the D8 was a winner because the OP does not tell us. Happily it is of little relevance because, even in the event of declarer having and taking the opportunity to lead diamonds twice, the same results can equally well be reached by other mechanisms.

Cashing in the order 2x hearts, 4x spades, QD results in 2 diamonds plus a heart or spade to the defense: 1 down. How can declarer be "good enough" to choose to cash one "winner" rather than another? There is no technical merit in winning the last 3 tricks with dummy's 3 club winners rather than the QD and 2 clubs.

Beginner or otherwise, there is no reason not to cash the QD if he thinks it is a winner. However, in this layout it feels unlikely that declarer will actually cash the remaining tricks in an unsuccessful order: players tend to play their long suits which they have worked to establish rather than those which opponents attack. As North I would inscribe 10 tricks into the result box and resist atempts by partner or director to stop me. As director, I'm not sure I can justify imposing my guess about which of a range of theoretically equal options declarer might choose upon the result. I think I have to rule 1 down, but I wont overrule N/S if they propose a more reasonable outcome. I would like to assign a weighted score based on the probability of the AD not being cashed and the QD being attempted (which I estimate is low, for both the 8 and 9 trick outcomes) and including a portion of 11 tricks, but I don't think this option is available.

Just checking: is a "standard" 2S alertable in this jurisdiction?

What I call reasonable is both sides trying to facilitate good disclosure: both in asking and telling. In this case, ideally the information would be volunteered at an opportune moment, but as has been pointed out upthread, this is not always practical. It is non-sensical to base an alert procedure around trying to guess what the opponents will expect. And it is not reasonable for the 2H bidders to expect others, who may have a different idea of what is standard, to work out what disclosure may be required, while at the same time absolving themselves of any reciprocal requirements because their way is "standard".

Oh dear. Does this extend to situations where East changes her mind what she wants to play and deliberately produces another card from hand, thus being able to choose between the first one and the second? I don't see any difference between deliberately producing the second card from hand or from a concealed position on the table.

You have identified the cause of the problem: people who assume their way is the only way. The solution is to persuade them against this unreasonable behaviour rather than to condone it and look for ways to work around it.

Were the facts presented to the EBU definitely the same as those in the OP? We often have threads here where participant do not agree with the facts as posted by someone else.

So North had UI that his partner didn't have the singleton? Perhaps he was constrained to defend as he did.

Obviously the slow Ace suggests a non-singleton, but with the alternative holding of A97 hearts to go with his club loser declarer would hardly consider ducking either, so declarer being distracted seems like the likely reason. Is this a relevant consideration here, or is "slow = not singleton" sufficiently powerful to override it?

Leading low from 4 low is far from unheard of. One of the categories of player who is likely to do so is an inexperienced player who is not familiar with all the nuances of "CC standard". OP does not tell us whether EW are inexperienced or not, but if they are then this is surely the type of situation the regulation was designed for.