peachy

I don't know your system but I think any system where one cannot support partner's major [first heart support hidden, then spade support hidden], ends up being poor methods much of the time. Of course I don't know your system or what inferences there might have been available, but since nothing was said, I assumed standard'ish . 5C now.

If you know you discussed it but can't remember what you agreed and one of the two or more possible agreements is alertable, then Alert. If you have not discussed it, and you don't have an implicit agreement (never came up before), then don't alert. Anyway, this is correct under ACBL regulation; where the question came from; where the situation is explicitly spelled out in the ACBL regulation. What Norwegians do, really is not relevant to the OP question and I am getting to the point where I wish I had an "enemy" button in the forums - not interested in continuously seeing "In Norway we do this" in threads that have nothing to do with Norway and nothing to do with changing laws/regulations. If this is too abrasive, or I become subject to moderator sanction because I said this, then I am guilty.

Your line is not a normal line of play, IMO.

I can plan on club ace with partner and a ruff at trick two. Or HK and another trick somewhere in addition. Tossup. Never a spade.

Never a heart from this holding! Major suit lead is normal so spade it is.

What were the methods? 2C 2D apparently "waiting"? 2H 5c suit (any negative inference, what would 3H or 4H mean??) 3D 5+ diamonds and no 3+ hearts (any negative inference as to strength? would 3C have been double negative? what would delayed 2NT have been?) 3S 4c suit? or stopper, fishing for 3NT? No diam support, no club stopper? 4D more diamonds and no 3NT interest 4NT finally admitting to club stopper? or is it really RKC? In the end, I bid 6D. There is no guarantee that even 5D makes if we don't know what we are doing so at least try to get a good score. I would have supported hearts over 3S, not bid 4D. Opener knows - even if he is a beginner - that I cannot have 3 or more hearts when I did not support them last round. What would have happened then?

You still did not understand what I said. Whether it was a misbid or MI, they are both violations [i]if the conditions of contest have clause that requires players to know their systems in simple situations[/i]. The ruling as it was made, is based on the TD and AC opinion that, behind screens, South should have realized from East's later bidding that she did not have a WJS afterall although she explained her bid as such. This raises question What if she did have WJS afterall, then South figured [using the AC writeup word] from East's later bidding that she could not have it, and then S made a bidding decision on this figuring, and THEN got damaged? He would get no redress whatsoever. Forgetting system in a simple situation SHOULD be an infraction that carries a penalty if opponents are damaged. Club level play and lower level tournaments obviously should not have this clause enforced to the same degree as the team trials to play in Bermuda Bowl. I don't know where you get it that there was no MI. The writeup says there was. Or else I am not understanding at all what you say. Sorry.

If your sub asks, and opponents don't answer, then I would give the basic outline what happened so far. If a sub opponent appears, I think it is proper to give outline of key elements what happened so far if you are declarer. Little tricky, the laws don't cover this other than communication with partner other than through plays and bids is prohibited. In live play, subs don't jump in in the middle of a hand, and there are no online bridge laws to fall back on.

Not meaningless, which is why I posted the question about Conditions of Contest. The ACBL general conditions of contest at tournaments have a clause that players are expected to know their system in simple situations, and first round bidding certainly is simple enough. However, this is USBF. I have a recollection (but cannot be sure) that similar clause was in the Conditions of Contest in USBF as well, but I cannot find it in the March 2010 edition. If the clause is there, EW should get a well-deserved PP regardless of how the case is otherwise judged. Both of the links I provided in OP are unofficial, although the USBF Bulletin link should IMO be considered "more reliable" - I have no reason to believe the other one isn't reliable, just saying, you know... ;)

Believe it or not, I have never given thought to this. I can barely believe it myself. I play (and like to play) systems on. One thing that could be useful is to use 2D as "bid NT if your have the hearts STUFFED cuz I'm short; if not let's find a suit" I am going to listen and look.

What do you think? http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news4.pdf page 3, also http://bridgewinners.com/chicago-trials I looked at the Conditions of Contest and the Special Conditions of Contest for this event. It seems that the requirement that participants "know their system and understand how it applies in simple situations such as first round bidding" has been removed. The edition is from March 2010. Can anyone confirm if this is a change, if it never was in the regulation, or if I just could not find that statement.

It would IMO be irrational for declarer to go into any ruffing maneuvres with three high trumps. Contract making. Miscounting trumps is an error of course so there is a minuscule chance that THIS declarer might have tried to ruff something in dummy since he is capable of error, but miscounting trumps happens all the time among club players while getting into ruffing plans with three top trumps generally doesn't happen.

Absolutely disagree. This to me makes no sense whatsoever and you even contradict yourself in the three statements.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

I *don't* have a 1NT hand. If I did, I would have bid 1NT.

based on his knowledge of your takeout double shape. Please explain.

You have no authority to throw the board out. Take your best stab at ruling or call another TD for advice. It sounds like EW did not have an agreement on what the Dbl meant so there was MI which contributed to North's 4D call and subsequent damage. Had the Dbl been explained correctly as "no agreement" or even "standard" or something like that, North would have passed 3H and EW would have played in 4H, going off at least 2. That is what should be the adjusted score for both sides. West has extras so he is accepting a strong invite. Besides, 3H might even have been forcing, I don't know EW methods. I completely understand North's logic in bidding 4D; it is risky but nowhere near the standard of irrational or gambling. But even if it is judged as such and they keep their -800 [i would not do that], EW score should still be 4H -2.

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never. Yes, that is what the chart reas as Not Alerted. Not sure what you are saying and how it is relevant. 2Nt over a weak two is a) natural and B) not a jump.

Only if it is something other than "to play". In ACBL, unusual NT overcalls of 2NT or four level or higher are not alertable, but if 3NT is "unusual", that 3NT needs an alert. http://www.acbl.org/play/alertchart.html

I play 15+ to 18- overcall NT. For me this is not a good 15, it could easily be seen as 14 1/2. The choice is between Dbl and Pass. I Dbl and let partner make all decisions thereafter.

My gut feeling is that they forgot to list this one explicitly also as not alertable. But as said, I am not going to argue further. I trust you know the regulation probably better than I do. Perhaps advice from ACBL might be in order, unless of course you are already 100% sure it is alertable.

This is conflict with 1S-2S-3H [HSGT] which is not alertable. I trust that you are more familiar with the regulation than I am. With "everybody" I was getting at the fact there will be no damage for non-alert even if by ACBL regulation it would be alertable.

Everybody (and I know you know what I mean) plays this. Alerting will just confuse and prompt a question, expecting the bid to show something other than "some hearts with stopper and could even be 4-card suit". By ACBL alert regulation, my understanding is it is not alertable and I never saw anybody alert it. In contrast, 1D-2D-2S just BARELY might warrant an alert, if it is played as "something in spades or a spade suit, tends to deny heart stopper" because it includes a message that is not related to spades, but nobody alerts this either, and why should they when everybody plays it and the logic of the auction is available to all four players.

Hardy says VERY GOOD that can play opposite singleton, with about 15+, solid not required.

Only superaccept with 4-card support, not three. I would open it 1NT or 1S, depending on partner.