gordontd

Who said that? Not the original poster.

When playing Walsh, I'd have expected 1♠ to be FSF with fewer than four spades, and 2♠ would have been natural & game-forcing. Having taken this route, I'd just bid 4♠.

Since they are playing SAYC, 3♦ was not NF.

Ask them to read the relevant bit of the law book to you.

Isn't it amazing how often players answer for their partners questions that depend on knowledge of their state of mind ("of course it was a mechanical error")?

"At the moment you were taking the bidding card out of the box, which card did you think you were taking out?"

I can't imagine bidding it with many 11-counts, and certainly not with a 12-count.

Looks more like a 2♠ bid to me, but even if it's a 1♠ bid for you, surely it's not a legit Pass over 3♦x?

Finally I think I understand - and I agree with you! The confusion arose from the OP's "all of East's cards are on the table, while North and South are still holding up one card". Thanks.

And if it says you are empowered to award an adjusted score in this situation, and you are able to (ie a result has been obtained and it is not the case that "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious"), then you must do so rather than awarding an artificial score. That's why I think the original ruling is unlikely to have been lawful, though we won't really get to the bottom of it until the original poster clarifies what happened.

Life would probably be easier for everyone if you stopped thinking of it as calling the director "on" someone.

It's hard to imagine that they could have reached this situation without anyone having drawn attention to the irregularity (if only by putting the card of an unestablished revoke face-up at the side of the table and replacing it with a card of the suit led). That being so, L9B applies:

On the contrary, such a card is a penalty card unless a director deems it not to be so.

L12C1a tells us: So, if it's possible to award an assigned adjusted score rather than an artificial score, it's not only a good idea - it's required.

These stories get changed a little with each telling, yet everyone seems certain their version is the correct one. Since he confessed to it, it's hard to see how you can dispute it now.

Sure you have. Or do you stop thinking when you put a card face-up? The only people who have been prevented from thinking are your opponents if you put the card face-down, because you are with-holding from them the information that you have.

I think it's the slams & cool stuff that capture the imaginations of new players - whether or not they get them right.

The important bit you've missed out is that 2♣ forces 2♦ (which can be passed), and then subsequent bids are invitational.

She knows that. That's why she said "if I can".

Edgar Kaplan said something like:

Why have your brought one of my posts from an entirely different thread here and answered it as though it had some connection to this, David?

I'm not familiar with that terminology, but I don't think any of those auctions is forcing in sayc, and I would have thought Standard means not 2/1.

Let's be charitable and assume that your post crossed with the one above it.

I don't think any of these three is forcing in "standard".

Wouldn't you rebid 2♠ with the same hand in "standard"?