blackshoe

Heh. If I had been West at this table, I would have opened 1♦ (Precision) at my first turn to call. :-)

To me (and I think most in ACBL) "balanced" means 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2; "semi-balanced" means 5-4-2-2 or 6-3-2-2, and all other distributions are "unbalanced". This means the only unbalanced distribution that does not contain a singleton or void is 7-2-2-2, and that both semi-balanced distributions include exactly two doubletons.

I don't agree with "no fault of their own". At least, not if they've been playing long enough to have seen UI problems at the table, whether theirs or their opponents'. What I meant by "they'll get what's coming to them" is that if they're deliberately using UI, sooner or later the director will figure that out, at which point they get a bunch of procedural or disciplinary penalties and/or get referred to an ethics committee.

It is because North "fumbled with a quasi alert" that I want an explanation of the auction. It has nothing to do whether I intend(ed) to bid anything. As for giving them an opportunity to clarify their auction, if they're deliberately using UI to do that, sooner or later they'll get what's coming to them.

My first reaction to this is that the alert procedure tells us that if we're not sure we should alert something, we should alert it. So North should have simply alerted. One could argue that North's comment is basically equivalent to an alert, but I don't think that matters as far as the law is concerned. If I had been West I would have asked for an explanation of the auction before passing 3!D. But then I'm not West, am I? B-)

Heh. I noticed the other day that Standard Modern Precision goes low to high and Santa Fe Precision goes high to low. Or maybe it's the other way 'round. Other than this, in many ways the two systems are identical. No idea which one is "better".

It is true that quitting a trick that contains a revoke does not establish the revoke, if that's what you mean.

I think that if partner's explanation, absent an alert, correctly describes your agreement there's no UI unless you thought the correct explanation was something else.

"Dummy can't revoke" is a myth. However, there is no automatic trick adjustment if dummy revokes. The director might still adjust the score.

I must be getting senile. :-)

7B2 says "each player counts his cards." When the laws say a player "does" something, there is no suggestion that a violation be penalized. Either he failed to count them, or he counted them and got the wrong answer. Oops. But there's no suggestion he should get a PP, and no rectification specified in this law when he doesn't count or gets the wrong answer. Oh, there's another possibility: he took the hand out of the board, counted his cards, correctly got 13, and then at some point laid the hand down on the ♠A from the previous board that he didn't put back in its proper board. Interestingly, I don't see a law that tells us when or how cards should be put back in the board. Maybe I missed it.

My general philosophy is that if a player notices an irregularity he should probably call attention to it (no matter who perpetrated it) and once that's done the TD should be called. The fact remains that the laws do not require calling attention to an irregularity. There are of course some exceptions.

Two good books on movements: Duplicate Bridge Schedules Movements, A Fair Approach There have been some objections to what the second book says about arrow-switching, and I don't think anyone should pay the price that seller is asking for it, but maybe you can find a better price. The first book is interesting as it goes into the mathematical basis for movements (I suppose you can ignore that part if you're not interested. There's the classic Duplicate Bridge Direction Some good stuff here, including the Groner and some free "bulletins" about movements and scoring.

You want to make this personal? I'd advise against it.

I think you are mistaken. "Withdrawn" and "cancelled" are synonymous (see the Definitions).