jeffford76

No one has mentioned South's double so far. How much does it matter to the ruling that South shouldn't have doubled 2NT to begin with? Poll posted here on that action: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-6400/

The first (and only) club toward the KQ was ducked.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj53haq63dj8ct542&w=st942ht7dqt9743c8&n=skq87hj852dkcaj73&e=sa6hk94da652ckq96&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1c1n(15-18)p2nppd3dppp]399|300[/hv] North/South is an A pair and East/West is a C pair. At the conclusion of the auction East says that she should have alerted 2NT as they play it as a transfer to diamonds. The director is called, and South declines to change the final pass, but away from the table says that if he had known 2NT showed a diamond transfer he would have passed it out. Later when asked if he didn't think something fishy was happening he said that he thought 2NT might have been conventional, but he looked at East's card and it is marked with 3C on the 1NT-2S line and nothing is marked on the 1NT-2NT line, so he assumed given that and the failure to alert that they were playing 2S as their bid to get out in either minor and 2NT as natural. 3D made 4. Any adjustment?

This is silly, of course. All you need to say is "You may make whatever call you like, but your partner is barred from the auction." Why would you ever go into all the rest of it at the table?

First off, from your description this doesn't sound like the 1C bid was actually made. ACBL bidding box regulations don't consider a bid made until it is "touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made". In that case just the normal UI laws apply. Supposing the bid was made, the strong club bidder can bid clubs which would force partner to pass once or bid something else which would force partner to pass throughout. [Yes, this is dumb. (Edit: and wrong - I missed 29C)] Note that since the original 1C call was withdrawn, and it was artificial, lead restrictions are imposed by Law 26B if N/S ends up declaring and East ever gets on lead.

John Oliver had a humorous, but serious piece on civil forfeiture recently:

They are legally obligated to accept cash for debts. You don't have a debt - you're trying to purchase something. Not the same thing.

Um, nevermind. Forgot 3-3 hearts also works. Clearly want to be there.

On Board 6, 3NT was non-serious. Not a garbage opener, but not enough to cue. Isn't slam just above 50-50 here on the clubs coming in, assuming that you have to pick a side to play for Hx, not that you're going to magically get it right no matter who has them? It would be nice to be there, but only because of the C10, and it's basically a coin flip even with that. There were some hands helene_t left out that I thought we made far worse mistakes on. :) On board 27, it does say LHO, but just to be clear, the question is whether to act in balancing seat after two passes.

jeffford76/trevahound will play.

CSGibson and I won a match playing with a non-forum pair when they asked for only one pair. I don't have time right now to try to track down details.

It definitely would be bad if I could notice that my auction was completely off the rails, and then make an insufficient bid to get back to 40%.

While my preference is for moderators not to yank posts out of a thread and start a new one, if they're going to do it, I think this should be standard operating procedure when they do, also including a link back to the original thread.

Have to? Threads drift. For people who already read it once, it's annoying to see a new thread with a bunch of posts they already read. There were no complaints in the previous thread about the drift.

This is clearly stated in Law 36A. The double and everything after it is cancelled and the auction reverts to the doubler.

I think you just say "given the auction and the dummy, the card is attitude about suit X" where you fill in X. I don't think opponents have any responsibility to work through your set of rules.

Clearly you play in the wrong clubs. :)

Unfortunately the ACBL doesn't have a sensible rule for the situation where you are pretty sure the opponents have failed to alert. If you ask and it turns out that they were in fact playing natural you have given a huge bundle of UI to your partner. If you don't ask and it turns out the bid was artificial you are told you should have known and protected yourself. Far better is the English rule that elaborates that while in general experienced players are expected to protect themselves, situations like this one with potential UI are an exception.

OK, to be clear, I think it is obvious that there always should be a return to equity for a revoke that gains more than the penalty. My preference is to have the default penalty be substantial enough that it hardly ever matters.

I think this is quite an odd statement of what I might think merely because of the inclusion of an "s".

I have had very few cases where I had to apply 64C, but a lot*more cases where I had to study the hand to make sure it didn't apply. To me following suit is so fundamental that it doesn't bother me if there is an automatic penalty if you don't do it (perhaps not accruing to the other side). I understand the lawmakers felt differently.

Yes, I know about the trend. I didn't like the changes to the revoke law either. :)

I've probably said this before, but I think the law should be one of these two things, and I don't actually care which: 1. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient bid or a pass (but not a double) and your partner is barred from the auction. 2. If you make an insufficient bid, you may correct it to any sufficient call. There is no penalty, but the insufficient bid is AI to opponents and UI to partner. Trying to get somewhere in between these two hasn't been particularly successful.

I find that you have to make a snap judgment pretty quickly after a disputed claim. Someone who just doesn't see the claim gets a more detailed explanation from me (but not playing it out). Someone being obstinate gets a "Let's just have the director sort it out." Once the director is called, if the opponent attempts to further engage, the best thing to say is "I think we should wait until the director gets here."

Blackshoe, you aren't the victim here. You posted something that wasn't true, and essentially have said that you don't particularly care that it wasn't true. Pretending like you are the one being picked on for no reason is incredibly disingenuous. People would have stopped posting long ago if you had simply said "I was misinformed, and I'm sorry for spreading information that wasn't accurate."