peachy

I believe there is, the typical case 1S-...3S. Whichever LA opener chooses, it can be adjusted. And whichever NOT-a-LA the opener chooses, it WILL be adjusted, if successful. I still have not learned which action opener is supposed to choose in this simple case if he wants to obey the laws? - With a clear acceptance, accept. But then someone says it is not that clear... - With a clear decline, decline. But then someone says, the hand has enough to accept - With a slam potential hand, cuebid or BW or RKC. But then someone says the hand does not warrant slam search... - Then the clincher: With a borderline hand that could be right for two of three decisions (Pass, bid 4S, slam search), which one is opener supposed to choose if he wants to obey the laws? I know it all depends on what the UI "could demonstrably suggest". So the final question is - What could the UI from the BIT before bidding 3S, be demonstrably suggesting?

Sure, it means that when there are two possible logical actions, you must choose a third, illogical action :) ---then take your zero and not bother with a director call. Except that if the"illogical alternative" gives you a top, it will be ruled away. There was a thread long time ago in another forum where the case was 1S-...3S-7S By a miracle, it made (or maybe it was 6S, I don't remember). It was ruled back because the illogical alternative bid was "caused" by the UI. Apparently the opener was frustrated that whatever he did and it was successful, ie. pass the game invite or bid a game, it would be ruled against so he decided to take an alternative that could not possibly have been suggested by the UI...

As to the conversation between the captain and the TD, either this TD or the appeals advisor or the Chief TD could have explained the ruling to make sure the team still wants to appeal. I wouldn't. The conflicting information about facts could be due to misunderstanding by the captain, but if it indeed was conflicting presentations by the TD, then it is the AC responsibility to establish the facts because without establishing facts that will affect the ruling, one is poorly equipped to review a ruling or make a new one, if that were the case. However, whether the BIT is established or not established, does not affect the ruling IN THIS CASE. Passing a Penalty Dbl is the only LA, while pulling a slow Penalty Double would be using the UI (if there was any). IMO. Result stands. Meritless appeal.

I already explained before why 4S will be the contract, with or without the infracting 3C bid. East will bid spades, whether opener passes 2H or raises or does something else, and West will raise with his 9HCP. Even West's diamonds could well be useful in context of a 13-15 NT hand with opener. IMO, you will not find anybody who passes the hand out at 2H or 3H with East's hand. Besides, when the hands are not known (only estimated from a friend's memory), any references to double dummy defenses become worthless. Before, they could be considered "if" the EW actions somehow hindered finding the double dummy defense, but in actuality there was nothing to hinder NS from finding that defense (if it existed)

1) Looking for heart stopper for NT 2) Natural or at least 3-card fragment, no clear alternative bid, searching for more info

"If" there is an infraction by EW (there might have been, 3C was likely influenced by the BIT), there _also_ has to be damage to NS in order for any adjustment or redress of damage. What is the damage? When there is none, result stands.

I cannot come up with any possible connection between the slow pass and 5C. Or, what the hesitation could demonstrably suggest. Result stands.

Was anything said about South's psych? Or did North rebid 1NT with singleton or void in spades? I agree there is UI from East's hesitation over 1NT and that this UI [extras] made it more comfortable for West to bid 3C. However, if West passes over 2H, East is not going to pass. East is most likely not going to pass even if North raises hearts but I would like to see the actual hand for this judgment, not just the spade suit. If NS could have beaten the hand with double-dummy defense, what action by EW prevented them from executing that defense? I would rule no damage, no adjustment.

It is IMPs, 10-board match, all white (1C) P (1H) Dbl Opening Polish club type opening, IIRC (P) 3S (4H) (P) (P) 4S (P) (P) (5H) 5S (6H) AP Still IMPs, 10-board match 1NT (3S) 4D AP 15-17 NT Can you tell what is going on in these two hands.

I am sure plenty of people would agree to this. However, that "wisdom" has nothing to do with the topics in this thread.

If opener passed 5H then they have a CPU (concealed partnership agreement). Systemically, in the explained methods [4H = transfer to spades] 5H cannot be passable while systemically, in the methods they actually play [4S = either shows 6+ hearts, or it is a transfer to 6+ spades] passing 5H is normal. This partnership has seen this auction before. I suspect they are novices. As to convention disruption, David S. alredy explained it. However, in the ACBL, the Conditions of Contest for ALL ACBL events (not just higher levels) say (page 5): "A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed." In the posted example, there was no damage, of course and nothing to redress. If I were the TD and was called to the table, I would ask what 5H promises by the person who transferred to spades and see what worms come out... and deal with it in some fashion.

Is it really ACBL policy anymore? The only definitive commentary from the ACBL about Law 12 in the New Laws is the following, from the Fall 2008 Laws Commission minutes: (In a more perfect world, the ACBL would have things like the Orange and White Books that make it possible to know what its current thinking is, instead of commission minutes buried in websites.) How did you manage to find these minutes? I did a "test drive" on ACBL website, looking for laws commission minutes. Impossible.

What was 4D and why did he bid 4D? If the answer is something OTHER than "gameforcing, slammish, offensive hand" then he should not have bid 4D and we are already in the woods with no flashlight and no map.

The problem was the 3D bid. 3C created game force, now responder should describe his hand with 3S. But now, I pass.

IMO, there should be no deposits. Money is a deterrent only to those who don't have much to spread around. It would be unfair to virtually deny only the poorer folks the ability to appeal a table ruling. Warnings and VP penalties, maybe progressive, for repeated meritless appeals should do the job.

Before going into responder's second calls, hope you both would agree that 2C says "I don't want to defend a low level contract". What one might describe as normal opening hands, would Pass instead of bidding 2C.

I discard from dummy and later try to limit heart losers to one.

This is a 3-card limit raise. Since you do have a bid that directly shows a 3-card limit raise, use it.

I believe GiB's failure to make certain penalty doubles is that almost all doubles are defined as "takeout". Maybe this is a system card error, but when I make a Double of the oppenent's game or slam contracts, the double is explained as "takeout". GiB always leaves the doubles in anyway, but I'm wondering if this may have something to do with it... A common type of Dbl that it leaves in is like (1H) P (2H) P P DBL I have stopped balancing in robot tourneys... and if I do, it will be a bid in a suit because GIB does not understand balancing at all. However, after balancing in a suit, Gib has no problem raising...

I like the interpretation that "when in doubt whether to alert or not, Alert". The regulation may be cryptic or difficult to read or even contradicting itself, but the spirit of diclosure remains, regardless.

I wonder if you have come up with the same agreemnt I have on this "special" NMF auction where Responder's first bid was 1♠. Namely, for me 3♣! shows the following shape: 3 card Sp support AND 4 cards Hts ! ! Normally, 3C would show a 5 card Cl suit, since after 2C! NMF the following rebids would mean: 2D = 4d 2H = 4h 2S = 3s Soo, if no 3s, no 4h, and no 4d, then opener is 2s, 3h, 3d, and 5c. So why did I select 3C = 3s and 4h ?? Because Opener can bid 2NT ( with a min) or 3NT ( with a max) with the same 2 3 3 5 holding and same reasoning: no 3s, no 4h, no 4d, ergo 5c ! ! And I figured you don't need TWO ways to show the SAME hand ! Edit: And it also works the same way if 1C were opened , 1S response and 2D! NMF.... try it . Your system is not the same as mine so it might work for you but it would not work for me. 1D opening is 4 cards unless specifically 4=4=3=2 hand and that hand would have raised spades, naturally. In my methods - which I thought were pretty much standard - 1D-1S-1NT-2C!-2D tends to show five card diamonds or six bad ones, denies 3-card spades and 4-card hearts.

No, I would pass.

What I have noticed is that very often GIB doesn't have what the explanation (during auction when I mouse over to GIB's bid to see the meaning) says it has. Sometimes the difference between the explanation and the actual is HUGE. A second thing is that GIB leaves in takeout doubles that should never have been left in, and similarly, it never makes a penalty double. As to its declarer play, sometimes it takes lines that I would not have taken but at least it goes by fast and I can go on to the next hand:)

Playing 2/1, incl. NMF. 1D - 1S 1NT - 2C 3C - 3C is a systemically undefined bid as a response to NMF, as far as I know. By logic, I came to a conclusion what it means - or should mean, and I bid it. Do you have an agreement what it means? If no agreement, what do you think it means in an expert partnership? I'll post the whole hand and our perpetrations in a separate post later.

I liked JLall's response, a ton of common sense. But generally, when partner is a passed hand, the systems you play after a 1M opening are not the same as when he is an unpassed hand. Also, it makes a lot of difference if the 1M opening was in 3rd seat or in 4th seat.