peachy

In receipt of UI, IMO East did not "carefully avoid taking advantage of it". TD should deal with the UI the way he normally deals with UI cases - applying the laws and going through the checkpoints like "was there UI"-Yes, "what could the UI suggest". "what are the LA's" etc. AI does not trump UI, I've heard before, even in this forum.

Nice question, but has nothing to do with 2/1 or SAYC so this should be moved to an appropriate forum. 1. Support is 3+ cards, therefore tolerance is generally considered exactly 2 cards and no-support 0-1 cards. 2. Lead direction is a factor, possible doublefit with partner is a factor. It is not yet determined which side will be declaring, the auction is not over. Overcall does not deny an opening hand so it might well be the overcalling side that will declare. 3. Invitational values. A hand that would show invitational raise if it had support instead of just tolerance. Other agreements possible, such as the suit quality of the promised suit must be good. Or that 3-card support with no honor is acceptable (or required), or that tolerance doubleton must be honor doubleton. Or that values need not be invitational. Make your picks and agree with partner how you want to play it.

May I ask where you found this discussion. Others have answered your main question so I don't need to give opinion on that.

What other changes has this pair made in their Precision system? If a lot, probably best not call it Precision as the requirement to have at least three diamonds for a 1D opening might have repercussions to their other openings, and the opponents are in no position to figure out any inferences themselves if all they know that the pair plays "Precision".

I like it natural and forcing, particularly if the weak 2's are fairly disciplined.

Ditto.

You are right about the accusation part. If there was any conscious or subconscious intent of "reverse hesitation", there will also be answers to TD questions which will hide that intent. Who would voluntarily 'fess up that he was cheating? In some jurisdictions there are recorder forms for incidents where something happened though apparently no law was violated. This would be a perfect example of things to record.

IMO, this is so foul that it should never go without proper consequences to the "not rookie at all". Edit: PS. It is often said that incompetence explains many cases, but when incompetence is ruled out (as it is here), what is left?

I think it is unfortunate that many commentators do not accept kibitzer messages. It would be nice if they remember that they are there for the kibitzers, and not to hear their own voice/text.

It would be no fairer than the current star policy. Spingold, Vanderbilt, and a few other events in ACBL and maybe elsewhere, are not WBF events and success in those is definitely at LEAST as prestigious as in some WBF events. I'm in favor of scrapping the whole star idea, unless everyone is made to understand that HAVING A STAR DOES NOT MEAN THE PERSON IS A WORLD CLASS PLAYER. It does not even mean he/she is a good player.

I'm surprised if there ever will be one. The wording is hazy enough to to allow arguments such as what "what is commonly occurring" etc. etc. The case has to be probably something like a misunderstanding in nearly every hand before any action is taken. Club level should be explicitly excluded from this regulation, but I really like it for higher level competition; however, the wording has to be tightened up before actual penalties can be given without counterargument (valid, too) from the pair that does not know its system. So far the only example which I remember from somewhere in the ACBL regulations, is that a common situation is first round of bidding in an uncontested auction. Not sure, if I actually read it in regulation or not.

This thread has derailed :)

Two-system methods that are based on vulnerability or seat, are allowed (of course) but pre-alertable in ACBL. In the regulations where this is discussed, the following is also included: As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods. Bolding was done by me. This says it is "not legal" to vary your system etc. etc. Is it based on a Law and what does the law say? Or do you think the intended meaning is "not permitted in ACBL"? There is no appropriate forum for this question as this does not involve a ruling, appeal, or change of regulation. I am just curious because I could not locate the relevant law (if one exists).

Accidents can be costly and can have consequences. The relevant Law does not discuss intentions, motives, or the lack of either. It was unfortunate for E that the tempo break and related fumbles and switches happened in a tempo sensitive situation.

No way. In Walsh, with a weak hand that wants to signoff, Pass 2C. Or, with a weak hand of 4 spades and 6 diamonds, bid 3D which is a signoff (or pass 2C, if doubleton club). In Walsh, 1C-1S-2C-2D neither promises nor denies 5-card spades but it is forcing and does not promise or deny diamond suit. An invitational hand might never even bid diamonds at all because at one level, bypass diamonds (even longer diamonds) to bid 1M, unless GF strength in which case bid suits in their natural order = longest first or up the line.

I think it matters what he said. It will be a slippery slope if it "matters what he intended" instead of what he said. Sometimes there is evidence clear enough of intentions, but just like any other mistake, this is a mistake.

6NT is not an invite to grand. Pass. It is too late to worry about opener's extras, he could have tried to show them earlier. Same for responder: if he were interested in grand he should not have skipped 3 levels of bidding.

3D. I can't make myself pass and don't want to encourage heart raise if partner has 4 of them and extras.

I see no reason to change "unintended" into "inadvertent", even if some other changes to the wording were to determined necessary. "Intended" and "unintended" have a clear meaning, IMO.

It is highly unusual for BOTH sides EW and NS to have created a FP scenario.

I think a common way (as far as I have seen) is to play Sandwich is more distributional with less than opening values, and takeout double an opening hand with the proper ability to play in either unbid suit. There is also 2NT available for the huge 5-5 or 6-5 etc.

Almost anything works, but don't even dream of using 2D opening for Mini-Roman (10-15, 4441) - that gadget offers the worst of both worlds = helps opponents and hinders our side.

It is against the rules of the game, not just a "natural tendency" that the other players need to learn to tolerate. Not sure why you asked the question in the first place, it seems you had already decided that the smart way is to ignore it.

I would have voted "Worse than substantially worse". In a Regional, the field does not have the bottom end of the spectrum, hardly any of it, because those players are in the KO's earning what gold they can, or playing in restricted events or side games. In BBO Speedball, you will be lucky to meet even one expert pair and the vast majority don't have a clue.

Your post takes up too much space, off with spaces and separators. The tone also is inappropriate for B/I forum; the smiley in the end does not really repair the problem. Just my opinion.