RMB1

Not many but some - more room for lentils on the shelves.

I have found that "these are boards 33 to 40, please add 32 to the number on the board before entering the board in the bridgemate" works.

The WBF law commission have said that declarer can stop playing the suit at any stage: in this case, she can play a spade as long as RHO has not played to the fourth diamond.

Playing SEF?

North does not have the luxury of conducting a poll before deciding what to do. It might be relevant to consider Law 73C as well as Law 16B. Partner's hesitation suggests he want to do something, or he wants me to do something. If I Pass then that seems to avoid either of us doing anything. That seems to "avoid taking any advantage", so I Pass.

I think the motivation was as much that giving master points for one of the teams in each 6-8 board round/match was a popular aspect of swiss teams, so a format was devised that would give master points for one of the pairs in each round/match at pairs, so that below-average pairs always have the expectation of winning master points towards the end of a multi-session event.

The WBF screen regulations say: So if South did not draw attention to the break in tempo the TD may rule there was no unauthorised information. If these WBF regulations apply to your event then there may be little to be gained by appealing.

Under the old Law 27, some TDs would investigate tell the table whether the insufficient bid was (not) natural {based on the apparent meaning of the bid), whether the minimum correction was (not) natural (based on the offender's system or by asking one of the offending side at the table), and therefore whether the minimum correction would (not) silence partner; before giving the option to accept.

The original EBU operating procedure for the current Law 27 did acknowledge that the non-offender could ask about the opponents (in order to determine for themselves if there were non-silencing calls available) before deciding whether to accept. I am not sure whether the TD should routinely invite the non-offender to ask questions about the opponent's system before deciding whether to accept. Some players and some TDs think the TD should tell the non-offender whether there are non-silencing calls, or what they are.

Presumably not expert, I guess intermediate/advanced.

Because the last seven years have not enabled us to agree a practical uniform approach to the application of Law 27, which is faithful to the wording of the law and the intent of the law, and which provides both sides with just the information to which the law allows.

"expect" - oops!

2NT showing a weak two-suiter without spades is "brown sticker" (is weak and has no known suit), so if it were not permitted at level 4 then it would not be permitted at level 5.

Yes, it is what we except expect of club TDs. TDs (at all levels) can hope that infractions are accepted because it is easy to rule. But we teach TDs that they must explain the consequences (for the offenders) if the non-offender does not accept, before giving the non-offender the option of accepting. When assessed, trainee TDs will be marked down if they give the option to accept without elaboration.

I can answer what I do (and leave what I should do to others) I check what has happened. I offer North the chance to accept the bid out of turn and call (Law 29A) or otherwise the bid is cancelled, it is still North's turn to call and East is silenced for the rest of the auction (Law 29B/Law 31B). I do not "offer" North to call under Law 28B because now "rectification has been assessed". Depending on the circumstances, I may explain to North that he is under no pressure to accept the call out of turn. Unless the bid out of turn is accepted, I stand by to apply lead penalties. Once the lead penalties are resolved, I allow play to continue and leave; asking to be recalled in North-South have a problem. If recalled, it may be necessary to address Law 23.

Is 2♥ "nat reverse, 20+" the correct strength?

Also, if you agree to open 1♣ on hands like this, such an agreement may be illegal. (But I do not understand the ACBL regulations for permitted agreements re strong/artificial opening bids.)

Not inevitably, North can still lead ♠J to trick 12.

Three tricks to EW.

I would be sorely tempted to put ♠A on the table as the quitted card from trick one and put the ♣A face up as the card played to trick two and instruct play to continue. Otherwise ... ♣A is a revoke and was established by the subsequent play of ♠A. Declarer's play at trick one was a revoke and was established by the play of small ♣. The other plays to trick one were revokes and were established by the plays to trick two. None of the revokes at trick one can be corrected and the trick remains as played, declarer played a trump, so he wins the trick. There is no revoke penalty/rectification, both sides revoked (Law 64B7). Declarer won trick one, so his lead to trick two appears to be legal. The ♠A is a revoke at trick two, and can be corrected, ♠A becomes a penalty card. Play continues, the only rectification relate to the ♠A as a penalty card.

:(

DP not PP surely?

The correction should be given with all players at the table, the law does not specify otherwise. If the opponents change their final call and the auction continues and the partner of the corrector has unauthorised information during the remainder of the auction (and during the play if he becomes a defender).

If the WBFLC minutes are included in the Laws why is it necessary for those minutes to include explicitly adding a footnote to the laws (for example, the footnote to Law 25A)? If the minutes are implicit included, explicitly adding a footnote would be unnecessary.

This is not very interesting for non-EBU-White-Book-readers. I think "exceptionally" is there because that paragraph is an exception to "and this Law has little application" at the end of the previous paragraph. In other words, the law is not often applicable to plays after the opening lead but is applicable more often to the opening leads.