sfi

11 tricks looks like the right ruling. It's irrational for declarer to do anything but shift to clubs once the trump break is exposed, and there is no way to avoid taking 11 tricks once they do that.

Since the agreement was natural, there was no failure to alert. That is all the information you were entitled to about the opponents' auction and there is no irregularity here. I haven't played with ZT regulations, but I would not consider issuing a PP for the situation you describe regarding the bidding cards unless really egregious. What strikes as more of an issue is your question. There appears to be no reason to ask that in this sort of an auction, so strongly suggests that you have long spades in your own hand. Now partner has UI that can affect the defence and can also highlight a misbid by West (which it clearly did). If I were director, I would consider whether this knowledge made a material difference at the table and potentially award extra tricks to E-W on that basis.

Pass. Partner has any number of actions with an interesting hand and chose none of them.

ABF: No Section 7.1

How does 1NT come close to describing a control-rich 19 count with a 5 card suit? The auction looks perfectly normal through 3D. After that, it should continue 3S-3NT, IMO. 3NT is a fine spot. Alternative auctions include raising 2NT to 3, or for East to bid 3C after which West can ask for a heart stopper.

If only there were a tool to help someone sift through the collected published wisdom on the Internet and find out whether answers already exist somewhere... Hey - maybe someone could invent one! Probably wouldn't be able to make any money from it though.

That doesn't matter, since you are going down in any case if that's the layout.

This might go some way to answering your question.

Do you have a way to find out which two suits have third round controls in an otherwise flat hand when both hands are limited? I am impressed. Remember, half the people here don't even want to force to game, so if these hands don't get included in some forcing raise we're better off when I do use one.

What exactly are you afraid of missing, and what do you expect a 4♠ bid to look like? It's worth knowing when to not use system as well.

That doesn't change the fact that there was nothing to appeal, so strictly speaking the process was not legal. Law 92B provides for a 30 minute period after the official scores have been made available for inspection, which had not happened since this matter had not been dealt with. If the 30 minutes was not appropriate, then the Tournament Organizer could have set another timeframe (like the next day, an hour before the next session, or a day after both sides had been notified of the result, for example) that would have allowed both sides to consider whether they wanted to appeal after finding out how the director ruled. The practical difference is that you don't have to fill out a form, gather a bunch of people in a room, and run a formal process that inconveniences everyone until there is actually a reason to do so.

I don't understand why this is going to an appeals committee. There doesn't seem to have been an original director ruling to appeal. If the director has determined that a revoke occurred after the play to the next hand started, Law 64C states that he shall assign and adjusted score if the non-offending side has been damaged by the revoke. It sounds like this is what has occurred, so the director should just adjust the score. Once that occurs, either side can appeal this decision. Had the director ruled that no revoke occurred, that decision can also be appealed. In either case, the appeals committee can change the score as prescribed under the laws (Law 91B3 defines which points the appeals committee cannot overrule the director on, but these situations do not fall under that). I can't imagine that the pair claiming that the other one revoked would get very far with an appeals committee if it was not picked up at the table, the director did not think so, and the other side disagreed, however.

4♠ looks normal. If 2NT is available I like it to show a hand is now worth more than a negative response, and this hand doesn't really increase in value much.

"How much did we get for -50?" "How many matchpoints would the overtrick have given us?" "Would passing your double have been enough to put us in the lead?" "How did our teammates manage to score -200?" "Did anyone bid the slam?" "Are we ahead of Fred and Jane?" "Who are we playing next match?" "Who is Allen playing with?" "Who's winning the non-life master teams?" And so on. All sorts of useful stuff that adds to the discussion between sessions. Not critical granted, but definitely nice to have available.

One practical effect of dealing with the last infraction first in this particular instance is that the first thing we do is offer South the option of accepting Dealer's pass out of turn. Intuitively this seems odd.

Nothing I could find in the laws. I stated it that way so that my understanding could be corrected if wrong. What is the accepted approach?

You definitely apply the rectification before adjusting under 64C. The situation here is complicated by the second revoke and some confusion about in which order to address them. As a simple example, imagine revoker having three trumps and revoking only on the last one. Now the revoke adjustment leads to -3. That's not achieving the expected result at the point just before the revoke, so you adjust to 12 tricks.

You really think the two situations are equivalent? If so, then good for you.

My understanding is we have to deal with the infractions in order of occurrence. North has the first option - to accept West's pass out of rotation. If so, then East's pass becomes a pass out of rotation subject to Law 30. The auction would proceed with North calling next and East having to pass at their first turn to call. If North does not accept West's pass, then the auction reverts to East. I can't see any reason why the pass can be withdrawn so it stands, and West must pass at their first turn. We are also directed to Law 23, but it's hard to see how West could see that the irregularity could damage North-South. In short, North gets to decide whether North or South calls first, and both East and West pass in the first round of the auction.

This is one of my favourite conventions - I love it when opponents play it. Knowing that the 2D bidder has equal length provides lots of useful information in the bidding as well as during the play. Even when the 2D bidder's hand is dummy, it can fatally inform the opening lead. And when they don't bid 2D, this information can be just as useful. I grant that it's much harder to double when you land in a 5-2 suit rather than one that's 4-2, but being able to find 5-3 and 5-2 fits has always seemed a very poor tradeoff given how much you give away in competitive partscore auctions.

You can't ignore where the laws point you just because you want to achieve equity. Law 64A prescribes a set adjustment (whatever you want to call it), and 64B tells you what to do with the second, separate offence. It even directs you to 64C, so it's clearly not a simple either/or situation.

I agree, and that's exactly what law 64B states. To be a bit more expansive, South must have revoked on tricks 2 and 4. They are both established, but Law 64B tells us that there is no rectification (i.e. Law 64A) does not apply for the revoke at trick 4. Therefore we deal with the revoke at trick 2 by transferring one trick to declarer, for 6♠-3. Now we look at law 64C, since we have two established revokes. The offending side is sufficiently compensated for the first revoke, since declarer did not go down as the result of it. However, the second revoke does cause an adjustment under this law. Had the defender not revoked the second time, then declarer would have made 6♠ plus the original revoke penalty. So I think you were correct to award 6♠+1.

Law 64B states that there is no rectification for a revoke if it is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player. So 64C leads to 6♠=.

Yes, even at club level there are separate scoresheets available - often tailored to the event (in sets of 9 if playing 9 board matches, and so on).

In Australia (where QuantumCat is from) both sides of the card are used for agreements. The inside of the card (when you fold it in half) contains information that the opponents are likely to need less frequently, such as responses to bids and agreements later in the auction. The front has basic system, opening bids, and common defences, and a space for "pre-alerts", while the back has common continuations (jump shifts to an opening bid, ace asking, etc.) and carding. Often the inside isn't filled out, particularly for pickup partnerships, and there is a simple system card that just comprises the outside bits of the standard one. There is a link on the ABF site to a program used to produce them, and some completed examples under the recent ANC event information.