At position 1 Blue on port tack, Yellow on starboard tack. Yellow is unable to sail her course with no need to take avoiding action. Rule 10? 
At position 2 Blue has passed through head to wind. Yellow is overlapped with Blue and cannot change course in both directions without immediately making contact with Blue. Rule 13?

Rule 13 says when it applies rules 10 11 and 12 do not. So only 13 applies.

MIke B, I don't think it works like that.  As Mark has said, a port tack boat, can initially break RRS 10, before passing head to wind, then, once she passes head to wind, break RRS 13.

It's all connected up and using either the US Sailing 'inevitable result' (US Appeal 65) or the RYA 'causal link' (RYA Appeal 2003/3) test, it is the same incident, and can be dealt with in the same protest hearing.

As been point out, yes , both can be broken. The question to be answered in the hearing, and established by the facts found, was it one or two incidents?  If one incident, then my reading of the rules is only 13 applies. 

Sail Canada Appeal 104 details a scenario in which a port-tack boat first broke rule 10, followed by a subsequent breach of rule 13.

Is there a school of though that you stop looking for further rule breaches once you have a reason to penalise? I would not adhere to that school.

Adopting the approach of stopping looking for additional rule breaches once a single violation is identified doesn’t seem to earn a passing grade on the International Judges exam! 

Imagine the incident in your mind and count the seconds - for 'big' boats, around 5 to 10 seconds to luff up and pass HTW - for radio sailing about 1 second!
This is one 'coming together' of two boats, and multiple rules are broken as the incident evolves 10, then 13 and even 15 once close hauled - but just incident and just one penalty.
John

US Sailing Appeal 65 speaks to a similar incident. I created the diagram for a rules seminar that I host. Paraphrased from the Appeal slightly:

 

Facts Found:
Red, on starboard tack, and Blue, on port tack, were beating to windward. As they converged (1), Red bore away below Blue to avoid a collision ((1)-(2)).
While Red was still bearing away, Blue tacked. A collision occurred while Blue was tacking (2). There was no damage or injury. At the time Blue tacked, Red was to leeward of Blue.
Red hailed “Protest!” immediately after the collision (3). Blue took a Two-Turns Penalty.
The protest committee concluded that Blue had broken rule 10 in one incident and rules 13 (While Tacking) and 14 in another. The protest committee disqualified Blue because she had taken only one Two-Turns Penalty. Blue appealed.

Appeals Committee Decision:
“The test of whether two occurrences were one or two incidents is whether the second occurrence was the inevitable result of the first. Times, distances, the actions of each boat and the prevailing conditions are all relevant to this test; the number of rules that may have been broken is not.” 
“Blue’s tack to starboard and the resulting contact were not the inevitable result of her breaking rule 10, because she could have continued on port tack. Therefore, the appeals committee concludes that the boats were involved in two separate incidents.” 
“Rule 61.1(a) refers to ‘an incident.’ A boat intending to protest another boat for two incidents during a race, no matter how close in time, must inform the protested boat that she intends to protest twice. Because Red hailed “Protest” without indicating that two protests would be made, there was only one valid protest. After the incidents, Blue took one Two-Turns Penalty. Since there is nothing in the facts found to suggest otherwise, the appeals committee assumes that Blue exonerated herself from the breach in the incident that was the subject of the valid protest. 
Blue’s appeal is upheld. The decision of the protest committee is reversed, and Blue is reinstated in her finishing place. 

Good input, all.  Thanks.

The responses have touched upon a few key points.  (Ironically, not yet the point I had in mind when posing the question. But that's my fault.  I will explain later, perhaps.)

Anyway, to summarise what's been covered thus far:

I think there is clarity and agreement on those points in general.  That's good.

An interesting point not yet covered in this discussion:

Benjamin Harding An interesting point not yet covered in this discussion:

A single Scoring Penalty.

See RRS 44.1 Taking a Penalty
A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have
broken one or more rules of Part 2 in an incident while racing. 
She may take a One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken 
rule 31. Alternatively, the notice of race or sailing instructions 
may specify the use of the Scoring Penalty or some other 
penalty, in which case the specified penalty shall replace the 
One-Turn and the Two-Turns Penalty.

A million point JohnA.

Yes, that's it.  Pretty clear, right. Could even bold the words 'in an incident'. 

Anything else?