campboy

The explanation you give to opponents really should not depend on the cards you hold. If partnership experience is that there is a fair chance partner has forgotten, then that is your implicit agreement and you should explain that whether the cards you can see make it more or less likely than it would otherwise be. On the other hand, if you have no reason other than your cards to suspect partner has forgotten then you do not have any implicit agreement to disclose.

I am not convinced. I think this situation is closer to situation (iv) of the appendix you cite (the calls have the same basic meaning, but the replacement call could be made with hands which would be too weak to make the original call) than it is to any of (i)-(iii).

What about 4♦ (assuming that is also a transfer? It seems like any hand which would respond 4♦ to 1NT would also respond 1♥ to 1m, so that passes the test.

So, if the IB happened because responder did not see the 1NT bid, or thought it was something else, the director's ruling is incorrect. If he did see it, and intended to bid hearts as a transfer, but somehow bid at the wrong level then it is correct. Either of these is quite plausible. If the director determines that 1♥ was intended as a response to 1♣, say, then 2♦ would not meet the requirements for 27B1b, since as you say there are hands which would bid 2♦ which are too weak to respond. A natural and forcing 3♥ bid might be ruled not to silence partner, however, as it shows hearts and the values to respond (and presumably, rather more than that). Similrly I would think that a 4♦ Texas transfer might be permitted without silencing partner under 27B1b.

Oops, I misread the auction. That is right.

I'm very happy with the 2♥ call as I am certain I would make the same call every day of the week without UI. As for what next, I would probably bid 4♥ which seems normal from the point of view of someone who thinks he has shown a weak hand with long hearts; I think passing is suggested by the UI so I will not do that. The answer might change if we play weak jump shifts over a double, as I now have more like an average 1♥-then-2♥ hand. [edited based on noticing an extra queen :)]

I have seen it suggested by a classicist that one should use "fora" where forum keeps its original Latin meaning, but that "forum" to mean an online message-board is purely an English word and should therefore take the plural "forums".

You haven't bothered to read shyams' question that I quoted and to which I answered, have you? Did you read bluejak's post to which shayams' (rhetorical) question was a response? My point was that it is the wrong question to be asking if you are interested in whether the hand was legitimately dealt. Admittedly I may have misinterpreted your response to the question, which I took as agreeing with shayams' point. Apologies if this is not what you intended.

Well, bluejak suggested that the hand might not have been fairly dealt. If your answer to this begins by assuming that the hand was fairly dealt, then it is useless. As any of my first-year probability students would be able to tell you, the answer to the question "how likely is it that this board was fairly dealt given the hand I have?" depends on three things: the ab initio chance of a fair deal; the chance of this hand being dealt given a fair deal (which is, as you say, the same for every hand); and the chance of this hand being dealt given an unfair deal (which very much isn't).

Certainly in EBU-land we would not normally give a PP for a fielded misbid, and this looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill fielded misbid to me. East may have used UI, but it wasn't particularly blatant. And if they genuinely didn't realise that this convention was not allowed, I don't see why we should be rushing to give a PP for that either. On the other hand, three separate reasons on the same board which aren't quite enough individually for a PP certainly should add up to one...

Since nobody seems to have bothered answering: The two hands have exactly the same probability! Well, duh. Now riddle me this: assuming there was a dealing infraction of some sort, which of those hands is more likely? What is the implication of your answer in a Bayesian context?

People keep talking about whether West (who has admittedly done something very bizarre) might have acted differently with different information, but there is also the issue of whether East, who is probably aware that his partner is liable to do bizarre things, would act differently with correct information. East may well have taken into account the possibility of West having a 9-count had he realised that the redouble was not natural.

Even if there was a failure to alert promptly, which there was not, the law would only give West the right to change his call to a different one, not to a non-call. So even if he were to change the call the IB would still have been accepted.

I think the two of you are just meaning different things: one of you talking about the likelihood of the penalty giving NOS at least equity; the other talking about the likelihood of it giving exactly equity. Anyway, I am fed up of explaining to people that they do not automatically get a windfall when an opponent revokes, so I think it gives exactly equity quite a lot of the time. I am also fed up of spending 5 minutes analysing a hand to see if I need to make a 64C adjustment, only to find out that I don't, so I would rather it didn't. Under the old rules it was often easier to check that no additional damage had been done. [i am talking here as a playing TD when there is time pressure on every ruling; of course when I am non-playing I am quite happy to have a hand to analyse even if the answer turns out not to be interesting.]

It's GCC legal if the opening was in third or fourth seat, though (under the same regulation which permits Drury).

I would think that the failure to correct 3♣ to 3♠ at matchpoints makes it red, possibly amber. It hardly matters, though, since the adjustment in the EBU for a fielded misbid is the same as that for an illegal method, viz:

And what did the TD say? EW were correct; the GCC only permits Drury by a passed hand.

You may well be right that your methods are more standard than mine over a forcing redouble. But so long as each method has a way to show long hearts with game interest and a different way to show long hearts without game interest one could reasonably play either. If redouble was to play, however, the 2♥ bid would definitely show a weak hand.

With a hand with hearts and no game interest I would pass and then protect over 2m; I would have thought that was standard, though we should of course be asking EW what their agreements are.

Not quite. You are required to call the attention once someone draws attention to an irregularity (law 9B1), but even if you notice it there is no obligation to draw attention to it. In particular, law 72B2 says that there is no onus on the offending side to point out an accidental revoke that the NOS might not have noticed. [This does not apply if you revoke and then realise before the revoke is established that you have done so: in that case you are obliged to correct it (L62A).]

Do you have an authoritive source for the claim that the redouble is alertable? The ACBL alert chart says that redoubles are only alertable if they have "highly unusual or unexpected meanings"; redouble being forcing is neither highly unusual nor unexpected here. Anyway, if we assume that the redouble should have been alerted then I imagine that had it been alerted West would still have bid 2♥ but East would not have passed it (indeed, I would play it as forcing if redouble is artificial). That means that the failure to alert has damaged EW. If you think that EW contributed to their own bad score by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or wild or gambling action then you might deny them redress, but it is still correct to adjust for NS.

Since the most plausible explanation is from brewing real ale, it is no surprise that it is unknown in the states :)

Perhaps West didn't think the redouble was to play (after all, if he did he would surely have passed it). It is East who has the problem here. If redouble was to play, then his partner's bid does not show values and he wants to pass; if it was forcing then his partner's bid shows values. Unlike West, he has no reason to think redouble was anything other than to play. The OP didn't say what country this occurred in, but if it was the EBU then the redouble should have been alerted. If it was the ACBL it is less clear; is this a "highly unusual or unexpected meaning"? I don't know, there are lots of reasonably common meanings for redouble here, and I doubt this specific one is in the top three (though "to play" probably is).

A quick google search gives six different possible etymologies, none of them obscene.

It is clear as to what the best thing to do is, but I do not see how the player has committed an infraction by failing to disagree with an explanation which was, as it turns out, correct all along. If law 20F5 instead began "a player who believes his partner has given an incorrect explanation", then it would apply to this player.