alphatango

While this is true, one unfortunately also needs to convince the director that no UI was available as a result of the question. However, it seems to me that: 1) directors will rule against you as a matter of course (unless they have prior knowledge and experience of your style, perhaps from playing against you), and 2) you could easily find yourself accused of a L73F violation. I suppose the question is this: would a statement in the system notes or on the CC that you randomise your questions in such a manner be accepted? I suspect it would be regarded as sufficient warning to your opponents not to draw inferences from your question, but I don't believe most directors would be willing to use it to rule that there is no UI available.

Possible misbid thought process: "Both minors, weak hand. Have a bid for that; should I use it? ...[some thoughts later]... OK, I'll bid." 1D, then: "Oh no, I meant to bid [relevant call showing weak hand with both minors]! Too late now." Stranger things have happened.

Will S sign off in 5♠? Or will they figure out what's happened after the theoretically weak hand bids again over 4♠?

Just a short note to say that I've often wondered about these situations as well, and would be very interested in hearing opinions from other people. === Easy one first: In the latter scenario (Qxx in second hand in front of dummy's KJx), I would argue that the lead out of turn is irregular and (relatively) unusual, hence you always have a legitimate reason for at least a short pause (thinking about whether or not to accept the lead). If declarer doesn't realise they've led out of turn and draws an erroneous inference, that's their problem. :) === First scenario: I think both "active" and "passive" acceptances of the LOOT are legal procedures, hence AI. (L55A says "may accept the lead as provided in Law 53", so simply playing is not irregular.) But that does not mean that you can use it to convey information; to do otherwise would mean that "I accept" and "I accept the lead" could both be so used. I can't find a way to let you have "active" and "passive" acceptance without losing to a slippery slope argument. So we argue that it's a "manner in which...[a play is] made", L73B1, hence you may not use it to transmit information; that is, variations in the way in which you accept the lead is UI. Alternatively, even if we argue that it doesn't count under L73B1, it'll be an implicit (or explicit) partnership understanding under L40, and we'll hand the problem over to RAs. :P Perhaps a question tangentially related to the first scenario is this: When declarer leads out of turn, L55A allows either defender to choose whether to accept or reject the lead. Is the information that partner expressed a certain opinion authorised? I argue that it's information "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations", L16A1c, so it's AI. Analogously, though, (variations in) the manner in which partner expressed their opinion is UI. (FWIW, I started this post wanting to argue my way to active/passive being AI. Oh, well.)

FWIW, I generally play something quite similar to FrancesHinden without the transfers over 2C-2D-2H (those look like a reasonable idea, by the way). 2C-2D-2H GF H or 20-22 bal; 2C-2D-2NT as 25+ bal; 2NT as 23-24 bal. Now 2C-2D-2H-2S is the usual relay, and 2C-2D-2H-3X requires opener to pass unless holding the GF H hand.

In the context of holding a "good weak two" with diamond support, how about a plan of 3H followed by 4D over 3NT, 5D over 4H, 5C(!) over 4D, etc.? Perhaps inferior to a direct 4D/4H bid, but not illogical, surely? (What if an inquiry might have required opener's (wrong) weak two to respond 3M, forcing responder to bid 4D to show the diamond suit -- also a plausible reason for bidding 3D here rather than 2NT?) The possibility of strong options in 2D also seems to detract from the viability of 3D as a controlled psyche, even if one were to require opener bid 3M all the time with a weak 2. Perhaps it depends on the relative frequency of the various options?

Submitted for general consideration. :) [hv=pc=n&n=sak32hq87654dakqc&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=p1d1h2c3h(Preemptive)4dd(Penalties)4sp5c5d(%3F)6cp(Forcing)p]133|200[/hv] EW are playing some sort of SAYC-based system; partner's 3H was preemptive, showing four trumps and a weak hand. (1) Do you agree with your calls in the auction so far? If not, what would you have done differently? (2) What do you do now, and what would you do at other vulnerabilities?