RMB1

Where I play "Sandwich NT" is not a convention, it simply means a NT bid in the sandwich position.

This apppears to be an application of Law 62C, in particular Law 62C2. The non-offender (South) had not withdrawn a card as he must still play ♠8. So there is no opportunity for the offending side to withdraw the card played from dummy. Trick 12 stands with neither declarer or dummy ruffing. [ i.e. what iviehoff said.]

[ Ignoring the MI aspects for the purposes of this reply.] If South has used UI; and, without the use of UI, one of the possible outcomes is 4S= (which scores better for OS than table result); but the Law 12C1c weighted adjustment including 4S= is better for the NOS; then the TD should adjust to the 12C1c weighted adjustment (even though some components of the weighting are favourable to OS). If the Law 12C1c weighted adjustment including 4S= is better for OS, then there was no damage from the use of UI, and there is no adjustment.

I rule that unless EW have an explicit agreement that 1NT is natural and 4-suit transfers are "on" after a sandwich 1NT then treating 2♠ as a transfer is not a logical alternative and there is no logical alternative to Pass.

Legal calls.

I would say that until such questions result in a successful lead then you are tilting at windmills. The main problem with "reverse UI" ever occuring in practice, is that it requires a player who is sufficiently unethical to try it playing with a player who is sufficiently ethical to do what the UI does not suggest.

Old fashioned agreement "if you don't understand, pass"

A player may change an unintended designation of a card to be played (to a trick), if he does so without pause for thought, and if (subsequent to the designation) a card has not been played (to the same trick) from the hand opposite the hand from which original card was to be played.

Not penalized directly, no. But prevented from bidding, yes: if you have unauthorised information from a failure to alert or misexplanation.

That seems an unwarrented assumption given that:

Of course he admitted he broke tempo, he would have broken tempo if he had paused for 10 second because no one (including the TD) seemed to think there was a stop procedure. If the alleged hesitator had been reminded of the stop procedure either at the time (by the 4♥ bidder using the stop card) or afterwards (by the TD asking if the stop card was used). He might have admitted to pausing for 10 seconds. As it is we don't know, and the alleged hesitator is due the benefit of the doubt, whatever he admitted at the time.

OK, we do things differently. I would ask if the stop card was used, and how, and how long the pause was. Only if the stop card was used. and the pause was longer than 10 seconds, would I rule there was an "unmistakable hesitation".

Can we assume that the stop card was used and the pause for thought was longer than 10 seconds?

Yes. Not just IE but much of Microsoft has been able to set its own (de facto) standards, which it could do because of its market dominance, and ignore any internationally agreed (de jure) standards.

Wikipedia says South West India

He should read Law 66D and explain that opponents do have the right to see your hand to see if there has been a revoke. Then the director should ask to see all the hands, and go through the play. If there was a revoke he should apply the penalties in Law 64.

I bought a Kindle and have put laws and regulations on it. I have used it at a few events, it fits in my jacket pocket or even trouser pocket. The PDF of the laws I have from the EBU is 2up (two pages to a view). I have reworked it so it is 1up and it look great. Getting from page to page is easy and fast. The downside is other navigation is slow. I have bookmarked key laws but loading the bookmarks is slow. You can also search the text directly but that it is also slow.

I assume this was a UI ruling? I may have missed it up-thread, but what was the UI?

Not on the original sequence, no. If (a big "if") we adjust on the basis that East doubles 2♦ then Pass is a logical alternative (to 3♥) for North on the sequence 1♥-(X)-2♦-(X)-2♠-(3♦)-

Is South always getting to 4♥ if he has forgotten that 2♦ shows ♥ support? North has UI and will not be able to show heart support again.

What do I do: Pass. What else do I consider: nothing. When partner opened 2♦ and I looked at my hand, it was vanishingly unlikely that partner had a strong option for his "standard multi". So I assume partner has a weak two in a major and one of us has got the subsequent auction wrong. I do not consider playing partner for a strong option.

... or even speak the same language (even if they call it "English")

I think "normally" is an underbid: isn't this a consequence of Law 86 B:

I agree with gordontd: despite being a lone voice, campboy has got the right approach to Law 27D.

The TD might have done better to ring some to get a proper ruling on the hand.