peachy

With 4-6 in the blacks and weak wouldn't you rather bid a nf (assuming it is nf) 2C over 1D-X, given RHO ostensibly has the spades? I guess with something like AQxx, xx, x, xxxxxx 1S makes sense. I did misread the auction but both in your original and rephrased auctions, 3C is NF because there are forcing calls available. GF hands have forcing bids available either by first round Rdbl, or bid 1S first round and cuebid second. In your rephrase auction, somebody is operating; otherwise opponent who bid 2H is marked with close to zero HCP.

Dbl. We can have a fit in three suits, opener might have only 3 diamonds if 5-3-3-2. Even if he has four, makes no difference, we still have two other possible fits and enough arsenal to compete.

I am fine with it if it doesn't make sense to you. The likelihood of the fourth hand having a penalty pass is so small that it is negligible, IMO. Playing Pass as to play, IMO is like carrying an umbrella with you every day in Las Vegas in the summer because there actually HAVE been days when it rains there. I am not saying that my view is the "only" one and this thread has an opposing view from a good player. I just prefer it the way I described it.

Not forcing. If playing 2/1, it is not even constructive but a signoff with 4-6 in spades-clubs. An auction without competition with that hand would have been 1D-1S-1NT-3C (signoff) when NMF or checkback is on card.

It is near impossible for you to have a hand that wants to play 1CXX, by simple arithmetic. If Pass was agreed as to play 1CXX, then the only situation it covers is when opener or redoubler has psyched and don't have what they promised. So the math is: Opener 13, Takeout Doubler 12, Redoubler 10, which leaves the fourth hand anywhere from 0-7, on average 3HCP. And 3HCP is not enough to leave them in 1CXX when they have the majority of HCP in the deck. Better to play that Pass tells partner you want him to pick the suit, you don't care. A bid means you have a clear preference what suit you want as trump. Here, Pass is better than 1D IMO, because if you bid 1D, you might be in 4-3 diamonds while having 4-4 hearts. You will always find 4-4 diamond fit if there is one, when doubler bids his suits up the line.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT. Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated? Case . On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated? I thought this was clear, but perhaps it is not? a. ACBL regulation violated and in strictest sense L40B because that gives the ACBL the right to regulate it, and they have so regulated. b. No law or regulation violated. This is a psych.

gnasher knows the law well enough so even if you did not understand, you can trust that what he said is true.

For me it is not a LA in the given auction and the given hand. But I am repeating myself, enough :)

This is not true at all. Maybe some systems becomes unplayable if you don't do that as well as some systems becomes unplayable if you don't open 15-17 NT with 5card M. Some players open every 15-17 5M-3-3-2 with 1NT and some others (like top Italian pairs) don't. This situation is the same with weak 1NT. That being said I am not sure how the constraints should look for 1NT with 5M as then responder is probably either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors as he didn't use puppet stayman ? EDIT: Assuming 1NT is possible with 5M and the responder is either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors, the results are: Winning lead: 3♠ - 105 9♥ - 197 5♦ - 105 J♣ - 94 You said about the simulation constraints: That being said I am not sure how the constraints should look for 1NT with 5M as then responder is probably either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors as he didn't use puppet stayman ? Though Puppet Stayman is common when playing weak NT, it is not known whether the pair in the OP had that on their card or what their methods were otherwise; weak NT can be played without Puppet just like a strong NT can. Still, thank you for doing the simulation, it is nice to have somebody do the work for the benefit of posters here:)

If any committee thought "the obvious club", then that group of people [don't want to all it a committee any more] are incompetent in bridge judgment. Club is the least effective, typically finding partner's shortness. What is the point of leading a long suit if the opening leader does not have entries, not even one, to first develop and then run it? This is IMPs, we want to find the best lead to set them. If partner has spades, he probably has only four, but if he has hearts the probability goes up that he has five - with one or more entries. I still think heart is the best and too bad the sims were introduced, with dubious parameters, before people had a chanve to think about this lead a little more. I would also lead a heart with 32 instead of 98.

Not in the same start of the auction 2H (P) 4H, was it?

Don't hover, ask the lesson giver to stop :)

This is a wrong assumption. 12-14 NT very often has a 5-card major, the whole system becomes pretty much unplayable if no 5c major allowed with 12-14 NT opener. There are some but not many 12-14 range hands where 1M is better. Still, even without your sim, I would lead a heart, MPs or IMPs. I'm a little short on entries to run clubs...

Need not much for 4S to make and various non-heart values will all be fine. 4S instead of Dbl. PS. Didn't look, just noticed it has all been said already...

Big *No* at IMPs for sure. Not even matchpoints although it is tempting to those who just can't bear to have them play at 2H. But, but they have not shown a fit, they may have more values and stopped low because of misfit, and my partner is likely to hold too many hearts for us to comfortably (profitably I should say) declare and the dreaded outcome is -500 or worse, opposite their non-making partscore.

I would rule no LA to 3NT, result stands. 3NT is not suggested by the misexplanation, it is suggested by the slight extras combined with West's showing some values with 3C. Had East rebid hearts, that is what I would rule as using the UI that *West does not know E has hearts*.

Did you have what the system explanation of your 3H bid showed you were "supposed to" have?

He acted in the way that a person who is hiding his revoke would act. It does not matter what his reason or excuse for shuffling was, it was illegal. Rule for the revoke and give PP for the hiding of the revoke. As the declarer, I would also make a mental note of the face and name, as a person to watch out for at the table in the future.

Here we arrive again at my pet peeve about the laws. The person who says he "miscounted the points" is free to "miscount" while the person who says he upgraded the hand might be subject to penalty or adjustment. *If* there is a penalty for violation of regulation, the miscounter [whether honest or not honest] should get the same consequences as the upgrader or the deviator. None, in the OP case, but in a case where the deviation is greater.

I believe this. Here is a another true story. In the early nineties, there was a retired schoolteacher in our local club. She had a major problem with a then-nine year old who played bridge at the club on occasion with his mom, dad, or a couple of other players who thought it delightful to see a young man play so well. Her words are like branded in my memory: "I was a schoolteacher and I am now retired. I don't want to see children in the club, I come here to relax and don't want children around me." All I could think after initial shock was 'Thank god you are retired, you should never have been a teacher in the first place if you hate children that much. ' I should have had the guts to actually say it to her, but didn't.

I will just use the 2NT to ask. If Pass, we could easily miss 4H, 4S, 3NT or 5D so action is indicated. In my methods, first seat weak two does not promise much but unfavorable, it still can't be complete garbage. My second choice is 3H to beg for a raise. Of course I would like to have at least the ten or Q to bolster this suit, but focusing on spades alone in this hand is not necessary.

Assume opponents know what they are playing and are explaining correctly their agreement about 3H, then 4S is obvious to me. Had 3H been "weak" or "pre-emptive" the problem is a little more difficult and passing then is a good option. As it is, opponents have the majority of points and a great trump fit. IMO, hardly a time to pass for penalty with a hand that has the possibility of 1/2 defensive trick opposite partner who has singleton heart and spades. If their methods for 3H in this auction are *10+ with heart support*, they might even take the push, for better or worse... Most folks have other ways to show various limit raises and use they use 3H as weak. This is a similar hallmark for not-so-strong players as a Stolen Bid would be. I hope I won't have offended anybody, it is just what I have observed.

IMO, this name dropping of a pair from a different zone was completely unnecessary. It could be seen as praise for diligent and complete system disclosure but your followup of is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook reveals you meant it as catching them doing something borderline. Let us hope it is *I* who has not understood what the point of the name dropping was.

I know dburn can speak for himself, but this situation is completely different. It is hardly purposeful or even fair to change the case to fit the argument.

Thanks David. I am going to assume that dburn in this thread quoted the correct regulations.