peachy

No, partner can be 4423, 3424 etc deleted

Very true. But let's not get overboard! In cases involving unethical conduct in bridge, "proof" is not necessary. Sufficient evidence is, and what "sufficient" is, is a matter of degree and that determination rests with the C&E Committee.

I thought it was standard to use the cheapest bid on 3-level as "double negative" so when a minor is not available on the 3-level, it is 3H. Of course I am not in a position to say what is standard and I don't know how you can be either, but if you are, link me to some references that say 3NT is "standard". Seems like a bad idea for the yarboro to be declarer in 3NT anyway so lacking agreements, I would bid 3H.

They do not, be assured. Even if they do not have "methods" they might gamble on it or otherwise stumble on it. It is not out of the question for them to get there. Which is why I would have no problem assigning EW 7H= and NS 6H+1

I totally and fundamentally disagree. Looking at the scoring table is not allowed. Just like looking at one's own convention card is not allowed. However, the knowledge of how much an undertrick or doubled undertrick is, is authorized information and is used by everybody. If however, the player does not know that or does not remember it, he is not allowed to find out from the scoring table during the auction.

Show a limit raise by 3H. I see no reason to hide the support.

Indeed it is nonsense, eccentric is too kind... :) I forgot somehwere during writing that 3H was a voluntary bid, not forced.

During the auction, the scoring table is of course authorised information to use and it is used all the time but if you don't remember what the numbers are and need to look it up, the memory aid is illegal. Partnership agreements are also AZI but consulting the system card or notes is not allowed during the auction. The headings on laws are not part of the law, they are just headings. If I am mistaken about this, I hope somebody would tell me why. I am not sure where this discussion is headed :)

I was rephrasing the OP question. With discussion, my agreement would be the same.

Without discussion, I would treat is penalty. Michaels bidder showed which suits he has, so there is no "takeout" even existing.

Tell us more about the table feel. The other reasons you state, are invalid and lacking bridge logic.

After 1H-X-XX- South should pass and opener will bid 2H so the Doubler is off the hook. Doubler has nothing to say, East has nothing to say, and now if South bids 3D and it goes P-P-, East can Double. But is opener going to leave it in? Maybe he should, he already showed no interest in doubling them when he bid 2H voluntarily before the Redoubler had a chance to express opinion. But how many will? I expect not many so not very likely, though it is possible.

Yes, it is. Of course there is also UI clearly expressed that the player was considering a sacrifice. I see no other reason for the question.

After OP informed there was a hesitation, Double is no longer a legal LA, IMO. The hesitation suggests [not only COULD suggest, but actually suggests] action other than Pass; the only other "action" that is a LA is Double. Even if I had been originally thinking about whether to Pass or Double, after the hesitation my options are restricted by law. Pass.

Thanks for looking into it. I didn't quite remember the hand nor the auction, I was busy writing down the explanations while in dummy.

If the Dbl was a negative double (which I assume it was, unless something unusual was agreed), pass makes zero sense.

Both players are at fault. IMPs vul it doesn't pay to go conservative. North made the first mistake, he could easily have only a 4-card (or even 3-card suit if worst comes to worst) heart suit and close to no values, whereas his actual hand has nine (9) working HCP, a five card suit, and an auction that gives partner singleton or void in diamonds. South's error is less glaring, so I give North most of the fault. But even South could have just raised to 4H and hoped for the best; his TOX could have been on slightly slimmer values so he is not minimum. 80 N / 20 S.

No quick or slow Pass, just a Pass.

Auction is the following, in the Robot Race #1850, I think it was Board 10. I haven't found out a way to access the hands, the link in "My Hands" does not produce any data. GIB GIB GIB Me 2H P P Dbl P 3D P 3H P 3S P 4S My partner-GIB's 3D was explained as : 4+ D 10-13, and his 3S was explained as: 4+D, 5+ S, 13+ . Turned out my partner-GIB had 4 spades, and if I remember correctly, 4 diamonds and maybe 8 HCP. My hand was strong enough to make it with 4-2-4-3 shape and about 19. Anyway, it appears something was not in sync. I have learned to expect that GIB bids suits up the line when responding to a takeout double and that takeout double followed by a new suit is not strength showing. Is this how it is supposed to be?

If partner was interested in penalizing them or interested in 3NT, he would have doubled or bid NT. Particularly playing support doubles, it is not quite mandatory but close to it, to double with the 1S bidder's hand. Whatever else one might think about its meaning, it says "I don't want to defend". 4D now.

What is your agreement for uncontested 1S-2D -3NT? I am merely trying to get a picture of what "mainstream" agreement is. For me, 3NT shows solid 6 carder. 18-19 bal..5-3-3-2....2-card support for responder's suit. Again, a picture so that responder can be in control. Not sure I would want to be the declarer in NT if the jump to 3NT was used as a solid M. Of course we couldn't do that if we couldn't open 1NT with 5M and 15-17, and if we couldn't raise responder with a 3 card fit; so it isn't workable for everyone. That might not be "mainstream". But it is "Old Hardy". I know what a lot of others do differently, but I don't know "mainstream"; and it makes for smooth auctions when a picture can be painted ---and slower give-and-take auctions when the hands don't fit a particular mold. Well. in my methods 1S-2D-2NT is either 18-19 or minimum, with 15-17 rebid 3NT. Now that is "new Hardy" [i can give referense if needed]. I have no idea what "old Hardy" is. IMO, jump to 3NT with 18-19 is detrimental to constructive bidding because it takes so much space and leaves responder poorly equipped to decide a) level and B ) strain, if he has 3-card spade support. Just shows that nobody knows what "mainstream" is.

What is your agreement for uncontested 1S-2D -3NT? I am merely trying to get a picture of what "mainstream" agreement is. For me, 3NT shows solid 6 carder.

The 2/1 system has no bearing on how we bid after our 1NT opening. There is no "best" way to bid over 1NT, agree on one system with partner and see how it works. If it doesn't work, agree on another. Lots of popular and not-so-popular approaches exist. Transfer on the two-level and then jump to game in the suit is probably 100% understood as mild slam try, if Texas was on the card.

The idea of catchall covers situations where opener doesn't have a more descriptive bid available. In my preferred methods, a completely descriptive bid was available so it would have been wrong to resort to the catchall and at the same time deny the exact hand that opener had (6+ good suit and 15+ or equivalent slight extras). The only objection to not using the systemic 3S call might be that opener not only had slight extras, but *significant* extras. I am not forcing my system upon you, but what does opener's rebid of 3S mean in your methods? Or for others, who would have rebid 2S with the given hand?

There have been posts in this thread from at least one elite player and from at least one other who is very good (I am not one of those two).