MFA

This. 'Protecting oneself' is a very important principle in practical bridge. A player should actively help clearing up ambiguities about his opponents' alerts and explanations, if something is likely to be muddy. Bridge is about making the decisions at the table with full information, not about sitting passively with only partial information (when we know that this is quite likely to be the case) and then hoping to rely on a convoluted and unclear interpretation of some 5F1[c] to save the situation afterwards. If we are unclear in any way: Ask. The other thing is bad bridge philosophy imo, and there is generally 'no mercy' from me in such situations when I'm sitting in the AC. :P

A pass which shows diamonds after 2♦*-(dbl) specifies a suit holding, and therefore is not "natural", according to 5F[c]. A pass which is "not natural" must be alerted according to 5E1(a). On the other hand, unless it shows something in particular, such as guaranteeing equal length in the majors, a neutral pass comes under the definition of "natural". It is not alertable under 5E1(a). I'm on the other hand a little surprised by this. I'm not really going to challenge your interpretation of the English rules, because I don't know anything of those, but I have always thought that it was a universial principle, that a pass is natural if it shows willingness (desire) to play in that contract. We have just that rule explicitely in the Danish regulations (Players' Handbook) and I thought it was a translation of a WBF rule, but perhaps it's not.

2NT. I think pass is a big position here that I would never take. We are vul at imps, no way I can pass. Being vul vs not also means that partner could have passed some completely hopeless hands instead of trying a subminimum 2♦. 2NT>3♣, because I really want to maximize my chance of getting to 3NT when it's right. It may cost when they run clubs against me in 2NT or 3NT but I'm willing to risk that. Also my hand is only invitational, perhaps 3♣ will induce partner to overbid. But 3♣ is ok also. 2NT>2♠ because I want 2♠ to show four when partner easily could have a four-card major. If I bid 2♠ with 3 I need a follow-up plan if I get raised. Originally downgrading this to a 15-17 1NT opening is borderline LOL in my opinion.

Where do you find justification fur such a claim about insinuation of cheating? Every reasonably good TD (or appeals committee) usually goes out of his way to explain to the players that getting a UI judgement against you is NOT an accusation of cheating. Misstepping is part of the game because these things are so tough to get right. We can't pull the C-word every time, makes no sense. And pulling the C-word was NOT what the AC did here. Nice story, but that has nothing to do with cheating either. You had a bad habit (like so many other players) which in this case was easy to spot and handle elegantly by the TD.

This is the message I got from the decision and the write-up. My preference would be that if they think a pair is cheating then they discreetly monitor their actions at other tables rather than make a ruling that insinuates cheating but has the accusation too hidden to be dealt with forthrightly. Sorry, but I would hate to death such sneaky things. Also it's completely overkill in this case, just because the committee might have thought that the appealing side happened to be a little fresh in the self-serving departement with their system explanations.

If so it's very bad behaviour from the committee. They should not get carried away like this in an everyday case. When somebody has just lost an appeal it's not the time to play tricky word games. That somebody is usually confused enough already. The committee should be very careful to explain everything straight and clear, so the player knows what's behind the ruling and knows what to do the next time.

It all makes sense, but I guess it's just a big style issue. The above rule would in my style be almost the opposite, so when we pass in direct seat and reenter with a double it's take-out. That doesn't necessarily apply when the opponents are balancing. 1NT - (2♣ art something) - pass - (2any) pass - (pass) - D (=T/O) 1x - (D) - pass - any pass - (pass) - D (=T/O) (1♣) - 1♠ - (D) - pass (2♣) - pass - (pass) - D (=T/O) Etc.

Splinter with clubs.

This is not about asking a single question. If you ask once what an alerted 1♣ is, then no problem. On the actual hand east started an inqusition: Q. What's the Alert? A. Could be short. Q. What kinds of hands? A. Five-card Majors (unclear due to South's accent). Q. It can contain a 5-card major? A. We play five-card majors. Q. What kinds of hands would be short clubs? A. Those with a bad diamond suit. Q. Could you clarify? A. It could be 4-2 in the minors since we need a good diamond suit to open 1♦. If he bothers to do that with a yarborough, he will be the first opponent I have met to do so. The point is to get neutral and relaxed questioning habits - then it's possible to ask about all alerted lowlevel bids without giving UI. I think it's not an either-or thing. More likely west was negligently not being careful enough when his partner had transmitted UI. Losing an appeal such as this will help to educate the pair if this was indeed the problem.

That's a very reasonable objection here. Parhaps 2-2 in the majors can just compete with 3♥ instead of take-out doubling to get the minors in play. However it seems to me to be difficult in practice if we have to decide at table whether X would be take-out or penalties based on how likely we were to be able to show our hand earlier. How about: (1♦) - pass - (1♠) - 2♥ (DBL*) - pass - (2♠) - pass (pass) - ??? *) strong, often 15+ bal in a weak NT context. DBL= take-out or penalty? Will you get this right with partner at the table? How do you decide these? For us it's easy at least. XX+X = pen, P+X = t/o. Aside from that, are we really that scared of -400 here? It could happen, but I would expect partner to be a solid favourite to make his contract. Aggressive, yes, but hardly a crime. If his partner had had a 5-card suit or just 4-4 in the minors he rated to be fine. I would have doubled also.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sj3hakt97xdtcjxxx&w=st854hq8xxdxxxcxx&e=saq6hjxdj987xcakq&s=sk972hxdakqxct8xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Hmm, not much response to this one. Sorry about the vulnerability confussion, because I think the vuln matters here, since one can expect more from a partner vul vs not. This board was only two boards after my partner's heroic pass of 1♦R, so I felt obliged (:P) to keep up the pace. I chose to XX and X 2♠, which was a big success as it was. -3. It seemed to me that the opponents were very likely to be in big trouble, but perhaps I just got lucky. I don't fancy a 1♦ overcall, but that's just my style. I feel it makes it too hard to get to spades or clubs later.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sajtxhaqjxxda7cak&w=sxxxhxxxdkqxxxcxx&e=sk9xxhtxxdxcqjtxx&s=sqxhkxdjt982c98xx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Partner chose to pass which I think is the percentage decision. Only imp expectation matters for me, I don't mind crap shooting if I feel the dice are loaded in my favour. 10 tricks, +830 vs game. I had a very suitable hand for sure. But I would expect north to show up with a diamond honour a large percentage of the time, since west rarely has ♦AKQ for a third hand nv pass. Certainly not AKQ fifth. Those opps are strong, aggressive players (I didn't mention that) who don't fall asleep with a clear bid. And north needs to have his high cards somewhere. Anyway, afterwards west was slightly annoyed that my partner took almost 10 sec to pass, claiming he would have run if he had passed in tempo, and that ♦JT982 was a clear pass. Of course, there is nowhere to go and all this is slightly lol which is also what I felt at the table. Passing 1♦R is far from automatic.

Nice project!

I don't know ACBL rules, but I hope not. B) :o :o Adjusting the score was fine (automatic) though.

If you refuse, he has the right to penalise you for it: Since you want opinions, here is mine: I think your attitude is unbelievably selfish. If the move is called whilst you're still playing, the director shouldn't have to ask you to move the board - you should already have done it. This.

While a spade lead might be automatic, an underlead is not. This slam is not bid with full control, and underleading runs the huge risk of giving away a silly, doomed slam.

No weak 2s in ♦.

Saw I got the vulnerability wrong, we are vul vs not. Sorry.

A routine 3♠ for me.

Pass also.

The bidding is fine. Perhaps the final 6♣ is a bit fresh (instead of just 5♣). I play low and pay off to the genius. If he got me then ok. I would never play for an underlead in such a situation.

Yes, pass is quite obvious.

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sk972h5dakq6ct864]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding goes: (1♣*) - Pass - (1♠*) - 2♥ (DBL) - ??? The opponents' bids: 1♣: Natural OR any 15-19 bal 1♠: Any negative 0-6 OR 6+ with diamonds. DBL: Take-out. Could be the balanced hand if appropriate shape. What's your plan? XX initiates penalty doubles, 2N would be natural. Pass followed by X would be take-out. Anything else is natural. If you pass or XX, you can assume that it will go 2♠ by West passed to you. EDIT: We are vul vs not.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sq6hk7djt982c9842]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding goes: (Pass) - Pass - (Pass) - 1♣* (Pass) - 1♦* - (DBL) - RDBL* (Pass) - ??? Precision, so partner's 1♣ was 16+ and 1♦ was negative 0-7(8). LHO's double showed diamonds. Partner's redouble was artificial, any strong hand with 20+hcp. Had he bid something else, it would have been limited and nonforcing. So he could have any shape. That's the system. Would you pass? The alternative is 2♣, which would show a balanced 5-7(8). Being 5422 is fine, since you can show that if partner relays for shape.

I don't think 'wtp' should be read that literally. I think it's often just a handy way to express that one has a strong preference for something. On this one I would expect all the 2♠-bidders to be able to recognize the most important flaws, and I think that most would know that some people would pass this hand.