peachy

1NT = bigger than 1NT opening, 18-19 playing 15-17 Rdbl = extras but unsuited for NT 2 same minor = length new suit = unbalanced hand, enough values or shape to be competitive opposite passed partner Some people automatically run to another suit if they opened 1C with three clubs, but I don't like that. We should trust the responder to run in the very rare case that the 1mX is left in.

The General Conditions of Contest for in ACBL for Swiss Teams says how a disagreement about seats is dealt with: http://www.acbl.org/play/Conditions-of-Contest.html "There are no seating rights. If the captains involved cannot resolve a disagreement, there shall be a coin-flip. The team losing the coin flip will seat its pairs first. The team winning the coin flip will then seat its pairs." I know the OP was not from ACBL, this is just FYI in response to David.

My answer (same as in another forum) is that it shows a hand that does not want to Dbl despite being strong. When I sort out why there was no Double then I can logically conclude it is a two suiter with clubs and hearts. With hearts and spades, 4D works fine. With spades and clubs, hmm.

If their negative double promises spades, then I would allow it. The only difference in the meaning of these two calls is that a response of 1S could be made with 5+ HCP unlimited up and any spade length from four cards up while neg double on the two level usually has at least a good 7+ HCP unlimited and typically 4-card spades. If their negative double promises both unbid suits, then the meaning is not the same (two suits instead of one), or the Dbl could be made with only three spades in goodish hands that have no other calls available in this auction, then the meaning is not the same (does not always promise spades), and I would not allow it.

My answer is: No. IMO it is impossible to determine what LA the UI suggests over another LA. I think we can ignore Pass because it is not a LA after opener encourages by 4S.

It does not matter if he did it on purpose or not. The Law is applied the same way. Even trying to discover the intent will lead to an insolvable mess and perhaps come across as accusing him of cheating if he confesses intent to mislead, and of lying if he denies intent to mislead. I have no doubt he tried to mislead with his questions, the TD likely has no doubt he intended to mislead with questions, but the TD just applies the Law and leaves any investigation of intent out of it. Opponents should file a recorder form.

because at that point u did not know that your ten hcp were not working points, and 2S would have denied that much strength. both 2S and 2NT (leben) at that juncture are weak bids. Well, 2S is not a weak bid unless so agreed. It is neutral as to strength and shows 5+ spades and could be weak or quite strong; opener will never Pass 2S. 2NT at responder's second turn to bid is commonly either Lebensohl or BWS style "cheaper of 4th suit or 2NT is wekness showing".

In cumulative, sorting cards after play would lengthen a club night by at least 15 minutes, probably more.

Agree.

Result stands. Going on after 4S is very clear, passing is not a LA for a reasonable level player. If anything, the UI from the BIT is that opener was on the border whether he should bid 3NT and show the weakest option. I would think that Pass is an illegal alternative [when responder has UI that opener has borderline values for the 4S response].

You are getting the right information. They are alertable/pre-alertable in ACBL, by the ACBL Alert Regulations - if it is a partnership agreement. Also note that even if there is no partnership agreement about it at the beginning of the game and it is not alertable, there will be an implicit agreement after it happens a couple of times, after which it becomes alertable.

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board. I was suggesting that it should be done at the table by all 4 players on taking the hands out the boards, and that your opponents should wheel the man in if you don't, meaning that it is essentially enforcible. Clearly it is not then necessary to do it at the previous table as well. It is just as effective and just as possible to enforce whether the shuffle is done after play, before putting cards back, or before the play of a new hand. There already exists a law that says to shuffle one's hand before returning it to the pocket; therefore, change in the procedure is unnecessary. IMO. The point I was trying to make is that who is going to care at the table that is passing the board on if an opponent shuffles his hand or not, but if the board is about to be played at your table, it would be in your interest to ensure opponents do so. Hence I suspect you'd get better compliance by doing it that way. I assume that everyone at the bridge table is responsible for his own actions and is acting ethically - meaning, playing by the rules. If enforcement of shuffling laws or any other laws about proper procedure, require that players "police" each other for compliance, it will be a bad regulation because AFAIK most players do not want to assume that responsibility and some, if reminded, feel like the reminding player should "MYOB".

These reports are best sent to BBO, not to the forum. Everybody knows GIB sometimes makes silly decisions or does not have what it by its system has promised.

Opener has 3-4-5-1, ace or king of diamonds, and about 17HCP. Responder's hand is more of a mystery to opener. What are your bidding agreements after opener's reverse?

Would you really comply with this? I don't think many people would. Besides, it should be enough that the cards are shuffled before being put back in the board. I was suggesting that it should be done at the table by all 4 players on taking the hands out the boards, and that your opponents should wheel the man in if you don't, meaning that it is essentially enforcible. Clearly it is not then necessary to do it at the previous table as well. It is just as effective and just as possible to enforce whether the shuffle is done after play, before putting cards back, or before the play of a new hand. There already exists a law that says to shuffle one's hand before returning it to the pocket; therefore, change in the procedure is unnecessary. IMO.

For me - and I believe in standard neg doubles - Dbl then 2D shows a weaker hand than the one shown. I double and then pass, misfit. You're too strong to bid 2D ergo you pass? Not sure what I have said to cause a confusion about what I said... I Dbl first, then pass. The hand is not too strong (or too weak) to bid 2D directly but IMO that is not as good as doubling, showing hearts.

The "field protection" and "unity of the field" are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with a table ruling. TD must not consider the field when he makes a ruling, no law allows him to do that. I don't know why this "field protection" thingy keeps popping up in opinions.

For me - and I believe in standard neg doubles - Dbl then 2D shows a weaker hand than the one shown. I double and then pass, misfit.

When I saw this post, I thought there could be no other choice than Dbl now. Maybe there is, I just don't see it.

Pre-balance, Dbl, seems right, we can hardly expect to get rich in defending 2D and partner might have too many diamonds to balance in.

1NT is out of range - too good - too control rich, ie. suit oriented - good 5-card major Opening 1S seems clear to me.

Now, you're either Nostradamus or this didn't happen exactly this way. I think you just used some reasoning which led to a good decision but what if they were discussing at the other table why that hand couldn't bid 4♠? Or why it was better to defend with such hand? Of course, there are several possible explanations. I do not say otherwise. All I say is that when it actually happened, for whatever reason, this is the first one that occurred to me. Law 7.C says: Returning Cards to Board After play has finished, each player should shuffle his original 13 cards, after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding to his compass position. Thereafter no hand shall be removed from the board unless a member of each side or the Director is present. It would have been entirely proper - I might even go as far as saying it was necessary - to inform the TD that the hand was sorted, which implies a post-mortem of some sort. Combined with the type of hand you had, the UI from the sorted hand to me would also indicate that maybe 4S made but was not really biddable. Your conscience was right, there was a problem.

1) Dbl 2) Not sure... With apparent singleton in diamonds, partner might have as little as KQJxx-Qxx-x-xxxx and we don't have any chance for 12 tricks.

Heh, I guess... ignore most of it, please. I misread the OP. To state my opinion again. Passing a penalty double is a LA. Much of the time, it is the only logical alternative. Reasons for pulling might be that the doubler's partner didn't have the hand he had promised in the auction and/or he can determine that doubler cannot have the setting trick(s). If I were the TD, I would like to see the auction and the cards before I would make a ruling. Surely the TD did get that information and judged accordingly that this time, in his opinion (or did he poll? -that was not mentioned), passing was not a LA.

Find a replacement/substitute. If that fails, assign whatever score the law or regulation tells to assign for boards not played (3 IMPs?). The reason why the boards were "not played" is not relevant, a far as I know. Unfortunate, of course, for the side whose player had the emergency.