gordontd

It's hard to see how the question could do other than indicate an interest in hearts. I wonder what answer to the question could have been given that would have led South to bid rather than passing. I also find it hard to see how North now thinks he's worth bidding game in hearts when, before his partner's question and pass, he was content to play in a part-score in clubs. Maybe he'll produce an argument that 3C showed values and he was "always going to bid 4H on the next round", but I'll need some convincing.

Artificial call is defined in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007

At the time of the introduction of the new Laws, Max Bavin gave a paper to the EBL and later to the EBU TDs, this part of which covers your first case: For your second case: the answer suggested by the question seems to me to be the wrong way around: for an L27B1b correction, the test from Max's paper is “Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?” Clearly there are many hands that would make an enquiry bid of 2NT that would not have opened 2♦.

Really? How often have you known them do it? I've not actually experienced, either as a player, a director, or an AC member, an appeal where the appellants lost their deposit. I know they do exist, but I have no first-hand experience of it. On the other hand, every year I read the round-up of EBU appeals which have many instances where the commentators think the deposit should have been kept but it wasn't.

It suggests to me that committees are reluctant to keep deposits even when they should.

I pass. They have a heart fit and/or half the points. I'd rather they played in 1S than in a red suit.

The strangest vote of all is for 2♦: they are happy to reverse, but not in their second suit!

If nobody asks the TD to explain it to them, they never will understand.

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but under L16C2a the director can arrow-switch the board so that South plays the East cards, and no-one knows anything of any hand other than the one they are bidding.

I don't see this ruling in the Law book:

It's an idea I've not heard before, but my experience is that I've never seen a team (or pair) deliberately play badly in this situation, though I've often seen them lose their last match by relaxing their concentration. But why do you assume the leading team will be playing the second-ranked? Often they will have already played each other.

One or other of us is mis-reading the question, because it seems to me that East did not win the revoke trick, and so your answer should have started "One, for starters. Then you look at Law 64C, and if one trick ..."

No

I wonder if opener might bid this way with 4513? Having failed to bid my spades at the appropriate time, I might as well bid them now as we can always go back to clubs.

I don't think it would be typical for a player who is not yet very clear about when transfers apply. "Superacceptance" is likely not in her vocabulary. She thought she showed spades when she bid 3H. She then had UI from the lack of alert of 3H telling her that her partner didn't understand her to have shown spades. To now bid 4S would look to me to be using the UI, an example of what has been termed "unauthorised panic".

Are scoring problems and unavailability of boards the main reasons for avoiding complex movements? I'd have thought that a bigger factor would be the risk that someone will do something stupid. Bridgemates also help ensure that people play the correct boards at the correct time. But sharing two-board rounds is quite impractical without two sets of boards, and so is scoring the shared rounds in the correct place on a traveller. But who uses travellers these days? You seem not to have followed the sub-thread from its start. The point was that technology allows us to take advantage of more complex movements in order to minimise the number of surplus boards in a movement. You and I have had this conversation before.

Sounds like it was RHO who hesitated.

Do you think he would have been a bit more likely to look closer into the position had his opponents disclosed properly?

No, it's the correct explanation because South says so and the alternative is bizarre, and their system card is consistent with it, and North says she was confused. Am I supposed to discount all of these factors to impose on them an agreement I do not for one moment believe they had (and nor do their opponents believe they had such an agreement)?

This sounds like an unfortunate combination of agreements, if you can't find out whether partner has support and you can't bid your second suit naturally. What would an immediate 3C response show?

It matters in that the game is quite different.

Are scoring problems and unavailability of boards the main reasons for avoiding complex movements? I'd have thought that a bigger factor would be the risk that someone will do something stupid. Bridgemates also help ensure that people play the correct boards at the correct time. But sharing two-board rounds is quite impractical without two sets of boards, and so is scoring the shared rounds in the correct place on a traveller.

Bridgemates & duplicated boards make it feasible to use Bowman movements, so that you can have two more tables than boardsets. And Web movements allow you to play thirteen sets of boards with any number of tables from 13 to 26.

L40A1a: It sounds to me as though the pair in question have an implicit understanding that one of them doesn't really play Smith, and they've failed to disclose that to their opponents.

???