peachy

If I knew what they had agreed for it to show, I would not ask.

What did 3D show?

I stretch to support partner but only if partner knows 2H here could be a stretch with a really bad hand. However, even uner those agreement, I pass with this hand; worst possible shape. If I had a doubleton spade, then it becomes a 50/50 and if I had a singleton spade, definitely 2H.

I cannot imagine why it would be forcing in any system, given the conditions. If opener wanted to force, he would bid 2S. Given that it was a third seat opener, 1S there shows a full opening hand that is not balanced since the rebid wasn't 1NT. Responder can do with that information what he thinks is best, including Pass. With two kings instead of 7HCP in quacks, and a pretty good five card suit, and one of the kings in partner's suit, I would like to keep the bidding open over 1S. Pass is not a clear error.

I like the agreement that when an invitational 2NT is pulled, it is forcing. This works for me and I don't have to worry about it. The OP auction could reasonably be agreed as an exception, same as 1D-1M-2D-2NT. Also, if I don't know if a bid is forcing or not [talking general, not this auction], I will consider it forcing. In the long run it is less expensive this way.

I find nothing wrong in the comment in the lines of "confirming there was a break in tempo" assuming that the comment was made in neutral matter-of-fact tone. Much of the time there will be no need for TD, now or later. But if TD is needed later, then it will be easier for everybody when BIT is already agreed upon.

Isn't South obligated by Law to continue bidding in accordance with the system "he thought they were playing" and he is not allowed to use the explanation for his bidding decision? In this case, what "he thought they were playing" happened to be "the actual agreement (2C = natural over strong club)". Had there been screens, South would have bid 5C as he would not have had chance to hear what partner explained. To Pass 4SX is not a LA. Just because it happens to be more advantegous for the opponents, legally it is not a LA, IMO. Did NS explain the correct agreement before EW made the opening lead? Did anybody call the TD at that time? When was TD called? I do not want to rule contract to 4SX. Based on my understanding of the laws pertaining here, South must continue to bid in accordance with his original understanding of their agreements and he must not wake up or use partner's explanation for his bidding decisions. Had the shoe been in the other foot and he had bid Michaels, then when partner explains it as natural (natural being the actual agreement), he must continue to bid in his original [wrong, in that case] belief that Michaels was the agreement. AM I completely out of it???? I don't understand how others here consider Pass on 4SX even a legal call let alone a LA.

It was agreed. Well, I think you know what I mean... What happened is puzzling. The AC had no reason "not to know whether there was a BIT" and no reason to change the facts that the TD reported.

If you play Jacoby 2NT as "real strong hand" then IMO you should not call it Jacoby, it is sufficiently much modified to no longer be same as Jacoby, just like 2NT as "invit or better raise" is.

So why didn't South just claim the rest at the end of that trick? With both opponents showing out in diamonds, he (apparently) now has 6 winners off the top, with entries, regardless of what happens in hearts, and there are only 5 tricks to play. If I was West, I'd just concede the claim. I won't be allowed to profit from my revoke, and nor can I lose tricks from before the revoke, so conceding all the tricks is a quick route to what's going to happen anyway if the director is called. You were perhaps thinking that a side ought to make a profit when the other side revokes? Not necessarily. Sometimes the revoke penalty does exactly rectify the gain from the revoke. Now if the H Q wasn't dropping, and E played a club back after winning the DJ, end-playing south, thus getting a second trick out of the revoke, then there would have to be an equity correction to give NS both tricks back. Again, EW end up just where they would have been without the revoke. NS can never do better than winning all 6 tricks. Most of the time, the side that didn't revoke gets a windfall because the laws are very clear and inflexible about violating the most basic rule of the game: *follow suit*. Follow suit, and if you don't, opponent gets a free windfall except in some specified cases. Revoke law still mechanically prescribes Penalties while the other laws (all or most of them?) prescribe Rectification in various forms. IMO, this is exactly as it should be.

Did not the TD give the AC the facts, among the facts was "there was an agreed BIT". I am puzzled what problem the AC could have, and if they do have a problem, then they are essentially saying that TD has misreported facts or that they do not believe TD gave them the facts or that they believe the TD is uncompetent of something. Really... I wonder if I have misunderstood something. The AC cannot have any doubt that there was a BIT, given David's OP.

It is no fun playing 2NT. Could be down 1 when everyone else is in 1NT making, or making three when everyone else is in 2NT making three. So at IMPs, I typically either Pass or bid 3NT even when I had an invitational sequence or a 2NT invite available. What opener should do, depends on what your strategy is: invite heavy, accept light. Or invite light, accept heavy. In the first, accept with all non-minimums and in the second, accept with maximums and anything that looks like maximum. It is not only HCP that matter.

What I play is Dbl = competitive/responsive, typically xx or Hx in partner's suit (never good three cards), implies minors, and promises some values. I think this is pretty universal. I like the metarule that 2NT in competition is "never" to-play but not all partners agree so it would be natural w/values and heart stopper in that case.

Opener's RHO had his chance to accept 2H and Dbl it for the lead. He chose not to accept . Tere is nothing to adjust or rectify.

Clear penalty. It is clear by logic (mine, anyway), don't even need an agreement. Opener has fully described his hand as 15-17 and 5-6 diamonds so responder is in charge and his choice is to defend 3CX.

The available evidence makes me believe there was a hesitation. 1. The opponent said there was BIT. 2. A "terrible player" - using your description - would hesitate over 2NT with the given cards. 2. Someone whose tempo is historically known (as you said) to be errant, likely hesitated. After this fact-finding is over, the rest is easy. Just rule hoe the law tells TD to rule. As a professional, you gracefully accept the ruling and if there is basis for appeal, then you appeal. I believe you when you say you didn't notice it but that really does not matter. The likelihood that BIT happened is much greater than that it did not, IMO. Ruling is correct, IMO.

Maybe the term to use is meta-rule? "Meta" just means it is everywhere or covers everything so metarule (or -agreement) covers a hole in your system, ie. when there is no specific agreement, a higher ranked general rule covers the case.

I would overcall 3H and it is not a close decision. Even if partner has some values to reopen, he would not bid over 3S if they raise, looking at xx spades and partner who passed over 2S. And if it goes PP over 2S, he could have xxx spades and certainly would not reopen with that spade holding opposite partner who couldn't act over 2S directly. If 3H ends up badly, it will be a push, unless the 2S opening was unusual (something others might not have done) in which case nobody knows what the score will look like but I think the overcall is normal.

4H, suggest final contract. If partner takes it as showing heart control for diamonds instead of offer to play, I'm fine with that and in that case he will cue clubs if he has it. Also fine. If he bids 4S, I'll correct to 5D after which ir is 100% neither has a club control. But without club control and couple of hearts, opener probably passes.

It is not possible to have an agreement for every single auction that could crop up. I have some meta-agreements with my favorite partners such as "If we are in undiscussed territory, strange bids are natural and forcing 1 round" "If I don't know what a bid means, do not Pass" "If I don't know or we haven't agreed if it is forcing or not, it is forcing" "If it could be splinter, it is" I want to add what debrose recently said: "5NT in comp is pick a slam and cuebid that forces us to slam is a grand slam try"

This would be a fine 2D if in 2nd seat vul vs. notvul. Otherwise too strong for 2D. Open 1D.

5S. I have anywhere from zero to 1/2 [possibly 1] defensive tricks and partner has advertised an offensive hand without knowing of my support and without letting me decide what to do over 4H. I think 5S is clear.

Pass would be very unwise. This hand is a completely normal 1D opening. The problem comes second round if bidding goes (uncontested) 1D-1NT. Should my rebid be Pass or 2D? I would rebid 2D.

3D, natural and forcing for one round. But I have never heard that it could be a LSGT for hearts and I would never agree to play it that way.

FWIW, I see nothing offensive about your title. It's like "Man overboard" or other similar phrases that I should HOPE we are not going to dilute into nonsense. PS. I am female in case it matters...