peachy

There *is* UI. Your partner's actions and reactions. And it is also clear what the UI conveys (spade honor). Being in possession of this particular UI, low spade lead cannot be allowed. If a spade is lead, the Q.

Dbl. Overcall style really does not matter. If it is sound and disciplined, great - we beat them more. If it is undisciplined or does not promise a good hand and a good suit, great - we can't make anything on the five level while they can't make 4S. If partner pulls [he shouldn't unless he thinks we getter a bigger plus declaring], I am raising to six.

1D first three, 2C the last but it could be the rebid problem is difficult in the last. This is an old nut, and people have different styles/agreements how to open 4-4 minors. Or 4441 hands with both minors. In SAYCor 2/1 with unknown partner, 1D.

If I should ever use the word the phrase "people of that ilk" to me it would mean something negative or bad or not acceptable. Is this the current usage, or am I mistaken and *ilk* is still a neutral synonym for *sort, type, class, same location* ? Native English speakers, help.

DK, the normal lead. Let him do the rest of the work without help.

If a real expert said he got them all, first try, no more than 30 minutes per hand, I would think he is lying. I would be surprised if some of the BBO experts get any of them at Level 5. So the answer to the problem as posted is 0%.

I usually play support doubles and a style where failure to double denioes 3-card support. However, this flattie might be an exception and I might Pass even if playing support doubles. When not playing support doubles, Pass.

On tilt because of myself. On tilt because I "have to" engage in endless niceties or to listen to - even "forced" to respond to - extraneous small talk that has nothing to do with anything other than make the round late, reduce break time, distract me from the matter on hand. Then I get stressed and impatient, because I am unable to ignore it, ie. I let it get to me and let it drag me out of the mental state I want to be in when playing in an event that I want to do well = calm, competent, observant, and mostly silent. Phew, if I bothered to spend a little time, I would probably edit this into one or two lines... but never mind, this is my problem. Earplugs next time?

1H in any seat. A 2H bid in the 4th seat if the suit were better quality, like KQ109xx and there were not that many aces. Range is still about 11-14 in 4th seat.

I bid 3S over 3C. Dbl tends to show either both majors or neither major, and ofc some values. With one major, just bid it. In that auction, I don't have to worry what my next bid/call should be.

3S [weak]. This is obvious as a kneejerk reaction, as well as after considerable time to think about it.

Lucky that you have Michaels available. Use it. If 3D were not Michaels, then bid 2S.

When partner who opens 1m in third seat and then raises instead of passing or rebidding the minor, he/shehas at least a full opener so game should be on with this responder hand if only we could find out whether diamonds are leaking three tricks. I would bid 3D and assume it is HSGT.

The explanation was extraneous when opponent didn't ask for the meaning of 3H call, but perhaps they were going to ask anyway (I would think it is normal to ask). However, North has not used the UI that partner made available to him, he/she acted as L73 prescribes. No MI, no use of UI, no damage, nothing to rule.

The majority view (= those who do not play Constructive Major Raises that show about 7-10) is that the first is 3-4 hearts in support and 6-9 or up to very bad 10, the second is heart preference with a doubleton and less than invite, of course. Other agreements are possible but this is what I would expect in the ACBL with pickup partner when no Bergen on the card.

I did. If it had been a strong NT, the question asked would be pretty stupid in the first place. Don't know what other adjective to use, sorry if this offends.

1H. Just pretend there are four of them. Second and third choices 2NT and 1NT. PS. GIB bid 1H, too - with invitational values and no good diamond support, just a few days ago. But what it also did was keep rebidding those damn "hearts". Ended up in 4H with 3-3 fit and made it. Crazy.

deleted

If 1NT is forcing, then 4S is the 3-card limit raise. Opener needs to know about 3-card limit raise. Everything else goes via 3S, when agreeing or false preferring spades, and can be weak or stronger [ within the limits of a 1NT response]. I have had this agreement for years, after an expensive misunderstanding long ago.

As often is the case the TD will have to rule with the information he got. I think we can safely assume that your second alternative is not relevant, if 3♥ was forcing they would have said so. What they said was in effect a fourth alternative, that the sequence was invitational and that East should accept with supermaximum. They agreed about this, but it could be that the true answer is closer to your alternative 3. This would be my guess, that this was undiscussed, but that they had an implicit agreement as stated. John This is what you wrote earlier: In their [EW's] written statement they say that East got a clear raise with his supermaximum when West has showed game-interest. They have however no documentation of their system or tendencies. This seems a reasonable logical normal agreement, given the wide range of the 2D opening bid. Not everyone carries the supporting written notes to the bridge table, and, not everyone even _has_ supporting notes of all agreements; some agreements indeed are implicit in nearly every partnership. So we adjust if we judge that EW does not have an agreement [meaning: we do not believe what they say on the appeals form] and we let result stand if we judge EW had an agreement [meaning: we believe what they say on the appeals form]. When there is no other evidence about their agreement than EW's statement, what does the TD or the AC normally do in such case?

I think it is not possible to determine whether Pass is a LA because some pieces of information about their system is missing. It could be that 2NT bidder has the sole decision making power in this auction and has placed the contract (opener allowing 2NT to be a tactical bid) in which case Pass is 100% because it is systemic. Or it could be that 2NT combined with opener showing a maximum creates a gameforce in which case 4H or 3NT is 100% because it is systemic. Or it could be they have no agreement in which case Pass IMO is the legal call under UI constraints. Let us assume the 2NT bidder had some used tram tickets for a hand and the auction went the same way with no hesitations [and no competition when neither opp has shape, just some points]. Then opener passes with this bigger than supermax, and it miraculously makes three. Surely there will be some who want to enforce a raise to game "because opener has supermax". Again, it is impossible to determine what the LA is without knowing their system.

Agree. Search long enough or deep enough, and one can find support for nearly any idea.

S has UI from BIT but Pass by S is not a LA, whether N made his call in tempo or out of tempo. Therefore, 4H-1 can never be the result, in my judgment. Rdbl by E was a call that has no logic to it and that is the result E by himself has created for EW.

Since we established GF, FP would apply by my agreements. 4S is clear. Passing and and then pulling would show a bigger/better hand that is suitable for both offense and defense. This hand is way better for offence than defence with the known doublefit. I wouldn't even care whether 4H makes or goes down.

I like 2C. Passing could work, but 1D-2C is always a difficult to handle auction for opponents, even if they are good. Also, it could be our hand and partner will not expect this much later from me if I now pass.