sfi

The problem is that it's really hard for players to be unbiased once they know more about the hand. When West gets the additional information and calls the director, they already know that South has a weak hand with a long suit, and can easily convince themselves (subconsciously even) that they always would have doubled to show spades. The director takes that into account, but has to consider whether they actually would have done that. Hence further investigation, often including a poll. Remember, the laws say that "the Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred." If the director thinks West may have only doubled half the time, they are perfectly entitled to give a weighted score based on this assessment.

Hence the "related question". The point was about the timing of when an exposed card becomes a penalty card and whether it impacts options on opening lead. If it doesn't yet happen during the clarification period, in neither situation should opening leader have any restrictions on which card to play. I suggest that is contrary to both laws and player expectation. Therefore a card exposed during the clarification period (your scenario) immediately becomes a penalty card. Of course, mycroft did the sensible thing and found the law clarification that said the same thing.

You can only allow West to change her lead before dummy has been exposed (47E2a), and therein lies the problem with South's explanation after the opening lead. I would be very likely to issue a procedural penalty, and it would not take much experience from the player before it is more than a warning. If South corrected the explanation before the opening lead, East would have the option to change their last pass. I suspect there is no reason for them to do so, which means we play the hand out and assess potential damage, both from the information before the opening lead and when West was talked out of a double.

These are established revokes. Since the defender did not win the trick on which they first revoked, one trick will be transferred to the declaring side at the conclusion of the hand since the defence wins a subsequent trick. (64A1) The second and third revokes in hearts do not attract additional automatic trick penalties - it's only one trick total at the end of the hand. (64B2) The director looks to reconstruct the hand without any of the revokes - how many tricks would declarer have won if the defence had followed suit. The director also needs to consider what would have happened if only the first revoke had happened, and then what would have happened if only the first two revokes had happened. Sometimes it's a later revoke that really helps the defence. Much of the time doing this is straightforward, but even if it isn't that's part of what the director is expected to do. Not unless the director really cannot work out what would have likely happened without the revokes, and awarding A+/A- should be the director's last resort.

It would be fairly simple to make the change you suggest, but I think it is a change rather than a clarification. And I'm not convinced it would be an improvement. In a related question, let's say the partner of the opening leader accidentally exposed an honour during the auction. The card will become a penalty card (24E). Your change suggests that there are no lead restrictions because the exposed card is not yet a penalty card - is that "better"? I would suggest that it is unreasonable for a card exposed during the auction to be treated differently to a card exposed during the clarification period, so either both or neither should already be penalty cards once the auction has been completed.

I'm also giving up on the club finesse. Even at matchpoints I'm happy to trade a club trick for chances elsewhere.

A cursory reading suggests: The opening leader is a "defender" once the auction is completed. (necessary for 16D1 and 41A to make sense) The exposed card is a penalty card (Law 50). If it is an honour, it is a major penalty card. Otherwise it is a minor penalty card (Law 50B). If it is a major penalty card, it must be led. Otherwise opening leader may play any card they like apart from another card below the 10 in the same suit as the exposed card. If it is a minor penalty card and remains on the table, the usual restrictions apply. It seems the critical point is that there is a defending side the moment the auction is completed.

Unless I'm missing something, have them complete the hand. Then transfer one trick to the declaring side at the end of play and look to see whether the revokes cost declarer more than one trick. Only the first established revoke incurs an automatic trick penalty (64B2).

That's because we're talking about different laws. Footnote 19 is referring to the specific situation when declarer revokes, and either wins the trick in their hand or in dummy. It simply clarifies that declarer and dummy are different "players" when determining the adjustment. Law 64B3 covers the situation where dummy revokes, and tells us there is no automatic trick adjustment when this happens. Any adjustment due to a revoke by dummy is covered by 64C.

It means that if declarer revokes and wins the trick, two tricks are transferred to the other side at the end of play. If declarer revokes and dummy wins the trick, only one trick is transferred. Of course all the other provisions still apply.

Remember the good old days? Back when someone would submit a play hand, people would offer various lines of play and then eventually Rainer would come along and post the right line. He was a good cheat code to have on the forums. :)

I don't see why it should matter assuming you can sort out the hand types in some way. I play something similar to David - mostly opener will rebid at the two-level and let partner clarify what they have. Since you're not losing any ability to exchange information, you don't need to change which hands you will force to game on.

They're both derived from the WBF regulations, but I think the ABF has added some detail in areas like this. Given that the person in charge of the ABF regulations is also heavily involved at the WBF-level, the detail is likely to be consistent. But they aren't quite the same.

Isn’t there something about alerting natural bids with potentially unexpected meanings? That’s why I would expect an alert for 1NT. After all, a stopper is rarely required to make 7 tricks if you have enough in the other suits. The reason most people show a stopper is because their real target is 3NT. If you really think about it, having 1NT show 15-18 (or whatever range you want) is itself conventional. It’s just so common that the collective bridge world has redefined it as natural and defined a truly natural interpretation (I think we can take 7 tricks) as conventional. And we even regulate which types of hands can make this natural bid. But that’s a different rabbit hole to fall into.

I would not be willing to play without that option, but as usual YMMV.