RMB1

That looks illegal for 7NT. 99.5% of 7NT=, 0.5% of 7NT-1. :)

I guess in those 5 pages, I missed the actually ruling at the table.

There are some people, when they disagree, I am not "worried": instead I find it a positive endorsement. :)

Are you sure you were playing under WBF regulations, in a club? WBF regulations do not require an alert for any range of NT bid showing a balanced hand; the WBF regulations do not require announcements. If local regulations require an announcement (or alert) of all 1NT bids and there is none then you can point this out (it appeart to be an infraction). If local regulations do not require an announcement for some range of 1NT bids and there is no announcement then you can assume the 1NT bid is in that range (or that they have no agreement :)). The common alerting requirements when parnter's bid may or may not be alertable depending on opponents' agreements is to alert. When asked: "if 1NT is 12-14, 2♦ is a transfer to hearts, if 1NT is strong(er), 2♦ is natural". Then at your turn, you can ask the range of 1NT and correctly understand the auction.

Discipline West for bullying. Discipline the TD for collusion in bullying. It is rare that the laws force a player to bid: even if the player is in receipt of UI and makes a call not permitted by Law 16, we adjust later, we do not change the call at the time. Here, South is not in receipt of UI. Instead he has created UI: not of itself illegal. He is free to choose his call at that turn as long as no bid was made (according to the prevailing bidding box regulations). There is nothing in the laws that can make him change a double to a bid. If the (chief) TD) was called upon to clear up this mess, I would adjust under "Director's Error", giving both sides a result based on South doubling; and a grovelling apology.

Did the TD give a reason for his ruling, quoting a particular law? There are at least two possible reasons for allowing a high spade from dummy: Despite what you say, the TD found that declarer explicitly called for a high spade; The TD found that declarer's incontrovertible intention was different (from a small spade). It is hard to believe that declarer's intention to play a high spade from dummy is incontrovertible: surely declarer could be intending to play a high spade from hand on a small spade from dummy. (If it was declarer's incontrovertible intention to play a high spade from hand but he did play a small spade, then he can not recover.)

Cyberyeti said his story was from some time ago. The explicit statement that information from penalty cards is unauthorised (Law 50E2) is new to the current law book and before 2007 it was not clear whether (having complied with the penalty card penalties) the defenders were free to use the information from the lead out of turn.

None. If I read this correctly, the only winning line for a defender is to play a small club from AKx; but on the previous trick he revokes by playing a small club, the revoke is corrected and the small club is a major penalty card, which the defender must play to the crucial trick. The law has been correctly applied, so there is no further rectification. There has been no damage from the point before the revoke: the defender has just forced himself to do the right thing. One might look at Law 23: But this can hardly apply: if defender knew it was to his advantage to have a small club as a major penalty card then he knew he had to play a small club on the crucial trick, so there was no point in the irregularity.

I did not intend to make any statement about countries on the North Sea (or the Baltic Sea).

I am sure this is true if played by Scots, or by players from elswhere in the British Isles. But we have been repeatedly told (by WBF) that if players from South of the English Channel or West of the Atlantic open 1C on 4=4=3=2 that is natural. :)

I am not clear: do you not like the current wording but are happy with the application? Or, do you think it should be legal to select an illogical action even if that action is suggested over the logical alternative by the unauthorised information?

The EBL has a similar regulation and it is applied in the teams championships. Frequently one specific team does not play another specific team (arriving late, due to travel difficulties, or the like). The result of this match for the latter team is not known until the end of the competition because it depends on their average in the other matches (or on the former team's average).

I would rule it was two systems. But what if they played 1C = 10-12 BAL or "18+", 1NT = 13-15 (in first/second) and 1C = 13-15 BAL or "18+", 1NT = 10-12 (in third); is that two systems? Or 1C = 10-13 BAL or "16+", 1NT = 14-16 (in first/second) and 1NT = 12-14 BAL, 1C = 15-17 BAL or "16+" (as one pair have been advised to disclose); is that two systems? [sorry, I see awm has already made the same point.]

[pompous] As a member of the appeals committee, I ask the TD where (the german translation of) "irrational, wild or gambling" occurs in the Laws. Then I would point out that a similar phrase appears in Law 12c1b, but that law does not stop the score for the offending side from being adjusted. [/pompous] Then we need to sort out what the EW agreement is: I do not accept the statement "East got the incorrect explanation" without further investigation. If 4NT can be any two suits, how does advancer act, and how does 4NT bidder then show his suits? Have they ever bid (4♥)-4NT with spades and a minor? We might find that East was given the correct explanation and would still bid 5♦, but West has been misinformed. With the correct explanation, West might bid 5♠ (North still doubles) and if this scores any better than 5♥X then an adjustment (for both sides) would be in order. We might find that East was not given the correct explanation and would not have bid 5♦ with the correct explanation. I agree with the TD that 5♦ was wild or gambling and adjust the score to the result in 5♣, for NS only. EW keep their table score (since their damage was due entirely to the SEWoG action). We might find that the correct explanation is no agreement "usually the minors but we have not discussed whether it might be a stronger two-suiter with spades and a minor" or "no agreement: general bridge knowledge tells us that advancer will usually bid a minor, to play". With such an explanation, East might still bid 5♦ expecting West to be able to work it out. We might then adjust to a proportion of the result in 5♣ and a proportion of the result of East bidding 5♦, again for NS only. EW would again keep their table score.

I am afraid there is no general answer. Each competition will have its own regulations. Often the regulation is of the form: for the innocent team, the greatest of AVE+ in VPs (e.g. 18-12 on 25VP scale, 12 on 20VP scale) OR the team's average in other matches OR the converse of the other team's average in other matches. The default English regulation is EBU White Book section 145.2.

The WBF system policy refers to the Conventions Booklet which is now part of Guide to the Completion of the WBF Convention Card. This says weak twos can be "standard" (fair 6 card suit), "undisciplined" (bad 6 card or fair 5 card suit), or "random" ("anything is acceptable"). That suggests they are expecting a 5 card suit, or they haven't thought of 4 card suits. So that doesn't help. :) There are some oddities re the Multi 2D: nH response is pass-or-correct, for all n.

There seems an issue of misinformation in the play: West says that if he knew North had hearts he would have defended differently. At some stage 1♥ was explained as spades, yet North (when bidding 1♥) did not think this was their agreement and South (when passing 3NT) must have suspected this was not their agreement; yet neither said anything at the end of the auction. If something had been said at the end of the auction then West would have had the change to defend differently.

It depends. How quick? :) Certainly the alerter can be to blame if the Pass was in normal tempo. But the damage is not great: there is late alert, the passer has been misinformed, and can change his call. But there have been cases where the Pass was quick, or the passer might have been expected to give the time to see if there was going to be an alert, and the late alert was deemed to be in time (consistent with the requirements of the alert procedures) and so not misinformation.

Or who thought ♥Jxxx was an impossible holding.

Indeed. While West comes down to -/Jxxx/K/K (without looking uncomfortable :)).

Did your team manage to take this any further? As I was the only one who was not surprised by the original ruling, you clearly were likely to succeed in an appeal, if you could be were heard.

Misinformation, what ever the rest of the card says. [pompous] Telling opponents what to do tends to get their backs up and TD's start reaching for their orange DP forms. Better would be: "That's not reverse Benji then, we'd better have the TD." TD "What seems to be the problem" "They opened 2C = strong or weak with diamonds, but their card says reverse Benji" TD "Does it give the correct explanation on the card" "Yes, but the top of the card says reverse Benji" TD "OK that is misinformation, I will consider if you have been damaged" TD to opponents "That's not reverse Benji: so don't call it that" :) [/pompous]

Online players from far and wide (outside British Isles :)) say they play "acol" but play strong NT and/or 5 card majors. I have wondered what bit of Acol they are refering to, but perhaps the only thing left is weak 2-over-1.

Not this then: (14-6)*3

If that is the typical attitude then I think my ruling would have been different. Initially, I was likely to rule that there was an agreement to not rebid 4M with the 4441 hands but opener had forgot / misunderstood. In that case 6-10 was the agreement about 4♠ and there was no misinformation. If neither player knew what to do with a strong 4441 after a 4♦ response then there should have been disclosure or a correction before the opening lead: "the weak two option is 6-10 but we have not discussed what to rebid with strong 4441, and we have no explicit agreement that such hands do not also rebid 4M." So I now think there was misinformation. Of course the defence may still switch to ♠K because the weak two option is more likely but there is a case for damage. When I played a multi in non-casual (for example, local league teams) partnerships, I did now know how opener rebid the strong type(s) after all responses upto 4♠. Obviously I was in a vanishing minority.