Learn Dutch: De penalty was eerlijk, zodoende hebben we de beker gewonnen. - The penalty was fair, as a result we won the cup.

This lesson is about past counterfactuals. How would you change this sentence to say "If the penalty hadn't been fair, we wouldn't have won the cup" without using zouden?

You can use the "double past perfect" structure by putting both clauses in the past perfect tense (had/hadden + past participle): Als de penalty niet eerlijk was geweest, hadden we de beker niet gewonnen. You can also drop als ("if") and invert the first clause: Was de penalty niet eerlijk geweest, hadden we de beker niet gewonnen.

Why is it hebben we instead of we hebben in the second half of the sentence?

The second clause starts with the adverb zodoende (therefore / as a result). Because an adverb is occupying the first position in this clause, it triggers inversion to keep the verb in the second position: zodoende (1) hebben (verb) we (subject).

Why does the sentence use the simple past (was) in the first half, but the present perfect (hebben gewonnen) in the second half?

Dutch frequently mixes these tenses in a single sentence. The simple past (was) is naturally used here to describe a past state, condition, or background fact. The present perfect (hebben gewonnen) is used for the resulting action to emphasize the completed achievement—they won the cup, and that result is still relevant now.

I usually translate eerlijk as "honest". Is it the standard word for "fair" as well?