peachy

They are entitled to know the partnership agreements. They are _not_ entitled to know what is in responder's hand when there is no partnership agrteement. This is a basic level principle in the laws about disclosure, at least I think so.

2♦ in this sequence may have a special meaning – it may be a transfer. Therefore, it should be alerted, and the explanation above given. Therefore the failure to alert is UI, because responder can infer that opener thinks the agreement to transfer is definitely off in this case. It's also MI, because Law 20F5{a} says it is. If opponent asks about the 2D call, I agree the proper answer is as you suggested. But if failure to alert is UI and MI, then alerting is also UI and MI. Alert and "I am assuming this could be a transfer" or not alert and "I am assuming this could be natural". I understand that opponents getting full disclosure of the AGREEMENTS trumps everything else so from that perspective I understand alerting EVEN IF OPENER WAS NEVER GOING TO ACT AS IF THE CALL WAS TRANSFER (and he wouldn't, he would always Pass). I think alert would be causing damage if responder had diamonds and opponents do not ask. Not alerting cannot possibly cause damage to the opponents because a) responder will bid 2H (if he had hearts) or b ) opponents never double so they get to profitably defend a silly 2D contract. I also understand that we must follow whatever the regulation says but if the regulation INDEED says the 2D in the posted case requires alert, then it is a bad regulation that promotes damage to the NOS. High level bridge has CoC requiring agreements, club games and pick-up partnerships don't operate under those conditions. Regardless of what UI or MI could be construed or even clearly demonstrated by Law to exist, the 2H by responder in the end remains the only LA, IMO.

There is no MI. There is no UI. Both partners know that they DO NOT have an agreement and information about the system the pair has agreed to pay is of course AI to them. Under these circumstances, it would be wrong to alert (unless both of 2D= natural and 2D=xfr happened to be alertable bids - which is not true anywhere) because guesses are not alertable. Steven G posted some EBU regulations, but not relevant to this case because opener was not going to act as if the call was alertable, he was going to Pass like a sane person and let responder do what responder wanted to do. There is no logical alternative to responder's correction to 2H.

1C. It is definitely easier to find a club slam after 1C than after 1NT. Not everyone even has methods to find it no matter how cold or obvious that contract is dbl dummy, if NT was opened. If there is no slam, finding NT should not be difficult after a 1C opening. If it is MPs, I just MIGHT open 1NT. It is not that 1NT is a stupid bid, it is just that 1C is so much better.

I do not know of anyone who plays Drury that does not promise a fit. In fact, only couple of years ago did I even learn that such an animal existed as "Drury with no fit". From my perspective, Drury with fit is common while nobody I know or have ever kibitzed (and I kibitz a lot) plays the other one. So I would say Drury with fit is s tandard and the other one is a dead dinosaur.

Option 4 is unacceptable.

Off topic: how do I see the hidden part?

It is ok to play Drury on in competition. It is definitely worth it IMO. Then, with that agreed, over a bid of 2C or 2D that takes away the rury bid, you can agree that X is either regular neg.dbl or a balanced 3-card raise.

You lose a lot of pretty valuable ground playing this method. Go with the standard that others have suggested, I would think better. But it is your system:)

All balancing seat jumps are intermediate or strong, obviously, because there is nobody to preempt (they were settling in a one-level contract). I don't have any idea what 3H could be but stoppr ask is a possibility. 2H Michaels 3H asks partner to bid 3NT with H stopper 2S 12-16 or so with a good suit, a descriptive bid 3S strong one suiter, need some quick tricks to make game.

If East believes partner has 15-18, which IMO would be the "normal holding" absent any agreements, he would be investigating slam. Apparently East had doubts about the meaning, and I am basing this assumption on the fact that he did not investigate slam. We/I have no way of finding out (absent any confirmation of this by East) where these doubts - *if* the doubts existed - might have originated (perhaps a prior auction where something weird in similar lines happened; perhaps, holding AJ of clubs and partner also having promised a club stop in an auction where _opponent_ promises six good clubs). These speculations aside, if there was no agreement, the explanation was MI. If opponents were damaged by the MI, adjust. I think the lead was affected by the MI and I would adjust to making four after a more normal lead. One of the declaring side players should have corrected the explanation to be "no agreement" before the opening lead was made.

What part of original question do you consider bad wording? I think the part people take issue with is "making him aware it's important part of the board". How does tanking send that specific message? The tank could just as easily be because partner has a problem of his own. How can you know that he's tanking for your benefit? Only the person tanking knows why he tanked. If he meant it to "allow partner more time to figure this is an important moment in defense", it was improper. If he were a c***t, he would just say he was thinking for himself if caught. Same thing when defender leaves his card out after trick and shuffles it to indicate he wants to see all four cards of that trick again. Or asks out loud. Or moves his head to look at all three directions of a trick in play after everyone has played a card to the trick, conveniently pausing at the "important" direction. Or any other maneuvre of attempting to send partner some message or make partner pay attention. IT IS ALL ILLEGAL.

Pass. Partner is likely short in hearts so if it is our hand, he will balance in with a Dbl. Any action in this seat needs better values.

It would be illegal, against the rules of the game, to try to influence partner's actions with anything other than the cards played and the bids/calls made.

Well, if that was the case they could have just said, that they have some perosnal/family reasons without getting into details. But , for those of you who say that more info is needed, isn't it obvious that the only way to get more info is to have an ethics committee address the issue , and start by asking the players for their real reason? And additional info : The conceding pair are candidates (either together or with different partners) to represent their country in international competition later this year. Do you think that changes matters ? Should their early concession influence their selection? If selection were done by a committee of some sort, any reasonable committee member would not select this pair to represent the country until the "real" reason for withdrawing is determined somehow. The given reason is not "real" because down 16 with 42 boards to play is nowhere even near hopeless and if the players thought it _was_ hopeless then they have a problem with common sense and judgment - a very good reason not to be selected. As others have said, they will be facing natural justice /peer distrust in the future.

What was their actual agreement - Lebensohl, or transfer to diamonds - doesn't that determine what the ruling will be?

This is a rare case where Guessthem was not the cause of damage. It so happens that 4S will be reached regardless of what N thought or S thought. Apparently it was found out that N forgot system (instead of forgetting to alert) when South informed opponents before their lead that there was a failure to alert 3C. No damage, no adjustment, as luck would have it this time.

The BIT obviously suggests opener was thinking of raising. Having a partner that could have a hand much weaker than this, I cannot imagine a NT opener could ever be thinking of doubling. It is just barely possible, but very rare. When the BIT is established as fact, then ruling should be 3H making whatever it makes.

Raise of 3NT to 4NT cannot be anything but a quantitative invite.

If the TD decided there was no BIT, then of course the ruling of "no adjustment" is correct based on the TD's findings. Had I been TD, I would have thought that E had PLENTY to think about and I would have judged that there was enough evidence that there was a BIT.

The same small doubleton in the opp's suit was there when he bid 2H. If he judged it a 2H bid then, there is no new (authorised) information to change things in any way. Despite the disagreement whether there was BIT or not, I would tend to think there was BIT and that the BIT'er was thinking of other calls than Pass (I would certainly STRONGLY consider bidding 4H with singleton in their suit but hopefully would do my thinking without BIT...). Since Pass is a LA, considering this player judged the hand only worth 2H in the first place, I would adjust to 4D making however many tricks that makes.

Asking to see the card and the partner showing it is just the same as if he asked "What card did you play to the last trick?" and the partner answering that question. Such exchange of information is not legal and surely there is no question about that, nor that the showing of the card after the trick has been completed is UI. I would want to make sure they do not gain from the infraction even if the infraction is judged only to be "illegally inspecting a trick that has been completed" instead of "wanting to see what partner signalled, after forgetting to look when the trick was in process".

To clarify my OP. Yes, the opening was 2S. No, there was no ruling, as I did not call the TD. But I was interested enough to find out later because my gut says it should be alertable for the reason that it is not only a natural call but it also contains information that I might find necessary in defense. Without any alerts, I would have thought opener was minimum and didn't have a feature to show. What prompted me to ask was the fact that in the same match there were other hands in which these opponents had strange methods that actually don't require alert, but which (to me) were unfamiliar and which I would never think of as "standard". After those occurrences, I started asking even when there was no alert. Their convention card title was "Standard, old timers". An example, 1H (2C overcall by my partner) Dbl (P by me) 4C. Turned out that opener had 5 clubs and the 4C call was natural, clubs... I have no reason to believe they had any intention of deliberately having "secrets" - one of the opponents was a TD himself, the other a true old timer of novice level (I thought). This was in Bracket 2 KO in a regional this week.

Method is: Over partner's weak two opening, 2NT asks for a side suit. Opener rebids his suit if he has no side suit, or rebids a new suit to show four cards in that. I know the 2NT is not alertable whatever it asks if it is artificial and forcing, but is the 3S response alertable? I was a defender and before I lead, I asked what did 2NT ask, and got the response "asking for a side suit". After the round, I went to ask the TD (a regional tournament) The TD did not know the answer at first but he came back later and said the 3S is not alertable because it is a natural bid and the lack of side suit is a negative inference which are not alertable. I cannot find anything in the regulation to say yea or nay to the alertability, but my own feeling (not worth much) is that it should be alerted. Should it? Or should the opening itself be alerted since the inference is that a second suit is routinely allowed in a weak two opening? What do you think?

Not sure I understand why it matters at all whether partner, and opponents, hear why I paid inadequate attention to the auction. I can understand it when there is an insufficient bid that it matters, but not in the given case.