campboy

How late is "much later"? While it is too late to get the transferred tricks, it sounds like EW are still in time to get an adjusted score to restore equity (4♦x=) under law 64C. (The score should be adjusted for both sides. Director's error is when "a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect" (Law 82C); it doesn't cover failing to answer a TD call.)

This isn't a score adjustment, so Law 12B3 is irrelevant. The revoke must be corrected, so play continues with East following suit on trick 12. Declarer was never "entitled" to both the tricks (either defender could have drawn attention to the revoke, with the same result) so he didn't have any rights to lose. It's not quite as simple as that, because the writers of the law seem to have forgotten that a player who revoked on trick 12 may have already played to trick 13. (He needs to withdraw both cards to correct the revoke, but the law only actually allows him to withdraw the first.)

Did he? That information certainly wasn't given us by OP. If EW's methods are roughly mainstream then it is enough of a misstatement to qualify as a psyche if deliberate, and difficult to see how it could be anything but deliberate. If EW's methods are far enough from mainstream that it isn't a psyche then those methods are probably not permitted anyway.

I think it is the fact that partner has the card in question (UI), not just the fact that it is a MPC (arguably AI) that suggests leading a spade. So I agree that even if declarer places no restriction on lead, law 16B does.

I disagree. In the original case I might well ask, since I am pretty sure there has been a failure to alert, and asking is unlikely to damage my side. It will damage us if I get the answer "natural" (but I "know" it isn't natural so that's highly unlikely) or if there has been an actual misunderstanding, rather than a forget-to-alert (but surely everyone knows their methods here). In the 1NT (x) case, though, I have no reason to think there was a failure to alert, and even if there was I risk waking opponents up to a misunderstanding. So I would not ask, would continue the auction on the assumption it was penalty, and would expect to receive redress if it wasn't.

Sorry, I thought you meant South wasn't allowed to ask. If you merely meant that asking is inadvisable then certainly there is no inconsistency.

For example, I voted "yes, in their own subforum", because I think that is the best solution, but would much prefer to allow them without restriction than to disallow them. I would be happy with any of the first three options, and unhappy with any of the others.

Rather than putting a subtitle on these sort of threads, particularly one that isn't very self-explanatory for new people, I prefer WellSpyder's suggestion of a separate subforum for theoretical/hypothetical discussion. But either way I would hate to lose Lamford's threads. Whether I agree with his view on a particular topic or not, I feel I learn a lot from the discussion.

I don't think this is consistent. If you shouldn't double without asking then asking is for your benefit (it allows you to double) so you are entitled to ask.

I would also be asking why East didn't bid 3♣ on the previous round.

Yes, I feel exactly the same way.

No, it really isn't. Law 23 requires that the player who committed the irregularity could have known that it could well damage NOS. Law 50E3 doesn't: if information from the penalty card causes damage you adjust, whether this could have been foreseen or not.

I agree completely that if cashing the ace of hearts is suggested by the UI that partner attempted to lead the suit, you may not do so (if there is an LA). However, in this case I don't think it is suggested by that. Whether or not partner wanted to lead hearts, I still want to give him a diamond ruff. The only thing that stops me is the fact that he won't be allowed to ruff, which I believe is AI.

That would only be contradictory if you interpret it in terms of what you are "allowed to know". But nothing in the law talks about what you are allowed to know -- you are allowed to know UI, you just aren't allowed to do what it suggests (unless there is no LA). So, in what I believe to be the WBFLC interpretation, you have UI that partner has the ♥3 and AI that he has to play the ♥3 at the first legal opportunity. Of course, you can't know the AI without knowing the UI, but that's not a contradiction -- you're allowed to know both things. Now does the UI suggest cashing the ace of hearts? No, the fact that partner has the ♥3 does not in itself make cashing the ace of hearts any more attractive. So you're allowed to do it, IMO.

Since it is a WBFLC minute, and quoted in the WB, that's how we have to rule. True, but irrelevant, since the fact that South possesses the three of hearts does not by itself suggest any play over any other. The fact that penalty-card restrictions mean she can't ruff a diamond is what makes it right to play a heart, and this fact is authorised IMO.

No, I wouldn't. Recall that "damage" is defined in Law 12B1, and it is defined in terms of "the expectation had the infraction not occurred". So it is fine for NS to use AI to get back to the number of tricks they would have had without the infraction. Unless they actually gain from the exposed card, there is no damage.

Good point! I now agree that the correct ruling depends on your interpretation of Law 50E. Rightly or wrongly, I interpret that law differently and would permit the dentist coup.

I don't see why the TD's error makes any difference to the result. If correctly informed, declarer will either still prohibit a heart lead (same thing happens), make no restriction on lead (same thing happens), require a heart lead (North cashes his ace of hearts and then gives partner a diamond ruff anyway), or, I suppose, accept the heart lead (North wins and gives partner a diamond ruff). The third and fourth options can really be ruled out (since declarer preferred to prohibit a heart lead than accept or force one before, that can't change simply because of different information about what happens if he does none of these things), but I include them for completeness. I suppose 82C requires us to adjust, but I would just adjust to the table score for both sides, since I don't think any other result is plausible even without TD error.

Yes.

FWIW I could imagine passing over 1♦, but if I did I would certainly protect.

No. A designation is a play only in the specific case of declarer designating a card from dummy. If any other player designates a card, or declarer designates a card from his own hand, that card is not yet played. A played card can be changed for any of the several reasons given in Law 47 (but for no other reason: 47F2). In particular this includes withdrawing a played card "to change an inadvertent designation" (47C).

I assume there was actual misinformation (as opposed to you having forgotten the system). What are the EW methods over a penalty double? I don't see why, with EW having correct information, the auction wouldn't start 1NT x 2♦ p p. Now South might double, if this is for takeout. North still thinks double means whatever he said, so I'm not sure how he'd take a second double, but NS getting to a club contract looks plausible. (In fact North might bid clubs a round earlier -- if South has diamonds or major/minor, West has diamonds, East is balanced and you have AJx of diamonds, you can be pretty sure South actually has a major+clubs.)

And in this particular case, there was no card for you to look at.

Of course they would not ask that as the first question. But, as I said, if they asked what the bid showed and were told "our only agreement is that we play Widget", which several people in this thread have suggested is the correct answer, the next question would naturally be "so what is Widget?"

The question "What is Widget?" is not a question about this partnership's agreement (or lack of it). It is a factual question about the meaning of a word that opponents do not understand. It has a definite answer. OP made it clear what this answer is.