peachy

c ) a regular 2H raise.

Adam brings an important aspect to the discussion: intent. In my opinion, it is best if intent is left out of the process in establishing facts, and rulings are based on facts that can be supported by evidence. If player's intent matters anywhere in establishing facts of a case when ruling, it is most likely going to reward those who can give a self-serving non-truth with a straight face. Let the actions and facts be the only evidence considered for fair application of the laws. I understand this is not always possible and the TD must make a judgments, to determine what he will consider the most likely scenario or how much or little evidence is enough for him to form an opinion. But definitely, lacking other evidence, the OS statement should never be used as the only evidence, even if it possible that it is true, such as "I didn't notice the hesitation" or "He always bids slowly" or "This is the only logical action for me" or "We play that his pass is forcing" or "I was always going to make this bid" etc.

Multi is allowed in ACBL in Mid-Chart or Super Chart events where the round length is at least six (6) boards. It is not allowed in ACBL Pairs events, not even in Blue Ribbon! Well, unless the round length in a pairs event is six boards... which it never will be. I

I'm very surprised to see votes for the 2H overcall.

1NT. Anything else is so distant as a second choice that those need not be even considered.

Never A, mostly C, but when and how to disclose... I find that problematic. As to the frequent 13-14 NT openings, that is a different system, so D because it is not a style or judgment of hand issue, it is a method to make the pro the declarer.

Yes, not alertable in ACBL. But offshape takeout doubles are unusual and unexpected enough so that the ACBL system card has a tickbox for Offshape TO Doubles. However, a person who uses those, most likely does not know better and is not aware there is anything "wrong" with their doubling style and therefore, most likely will not have that box on the system card checked. Similarly, if opponent asks, they most likely would not be answering the "question behind the question" about shape or other style matters, and they would just say "Takeout Double" and stare blindly wondering why the question was asked... So what is the remedy? Have to ask several direct questions to find out their style as to shape of TO Doubles? Anyway, this does not address OP issues as it took place in Australia, not in ACBL...

Others have already said it, but I open 1D. I like to be honest about shape with strong hands.

Keep them happy. Happy people play better bridge while unhappy or nervous ones blunder excessively. Then, play their card, however ridiculous the methods are. Until they ASK to be taught new methods and then go sparingly one step at a time over a long period of time. Then, keep yourself happy, focused, and in a pro-mood (positive, no comments in the middle of the game) even after seeing the same type of mistake for the umpteenth time in one evening :P I don't play pro, but I have seen some bad ones destroy the game or what there even was of it from the start, for some hopeless players.

I can't pick which bid deserved to be voted as worst - 2S, 3S, 4S, 5C, or 6C. Apparently responder rated his hand as GF since he did not rebid the club suit so this auction is "any old 2/1" instead of "except when suit rebid". In a GF auction, 2S promises 3+ spades. Responder could not rebid 3C due to system restriction, but he should have not misrepresented his spade length, even when it did no damage to the auction now that opener's spades were so pretty. Opener could have bid 3C instead of 3S. Then, I don't understand why responder refused to show any aces by the 4S bid. Then, I don't understand why opener bid 5C, though I do have some sympathy for it - it would be a rare and strange hand for responder to not have any aces and still be gameforcing; opener is staring at A LOT of kings, queens and even jacks, including honors in clubs so 5C is desperately looking for a heart control.

Now I am curious about it. What is the story? Or maybe a case?

It is a reasonable rule to agree that all GF hands go through 2D which means that everything else is either invitational or weak.

You've all already said it, East. In this case, I don't think it matters that opener's hand is not really a 1-level opener, responder broke discipline by the Dbl.

Responder has invitational values with 6-card hearts. I raise to 4H. Opening hand could have been much softer, aces are great to retain control and take tricks.

What will opener bid, under your agreements, if he does _not_ want to force but he has spade support. I am not trying to poke holes in your agreed methods, but this hole is too big to ignore. How do you handle it, by just always going to game or by having higher requirements for a reverse than most people do?

Before being able to answer the questions and guess on partner's hand, need to know your agreements in reverse auctions. I assume 2D was a standard reverse, showing 5+ clubs and at least a good 16+ in HCP, with either a 4-card diamond suit or with very bulky shorter diamonds. In my methods, 2S was showing 5+ spades, neither promising nor denying better than minimum response. 3S was non-forcing, showing support. 3NT has heart stopper, doubleton in clubs and three or fewer diamonds, and obviously GF :) 4D was cue. 4S signoff denying heart ace or king. 5H denying club ace, asking partner to bid slam if he has club ace. Opener's shape is 3-1-4-5, 4-1-3-5. 4-0-4-5, 3-0-4-6, 4-0-3-6, 3-2-2-6 with AK diamonds, or some such.

Pass. Never NT, it would be a huge overbid. Negative double would be a little misleading as to values, partner cannot envision that I have 2HCP outside of clubs. Opener is marked with shortness in clubs so he will re-open in the balancing seat with either a Dbl or a bid. If he doesn't reopen, then I am content to defend 2C.

As to stop asking, when opponents have bid two suits naturally, it is common standard to have no stopper asking - in such case there is stopper showing (bid the suit you have stopped, or bid NT if you have them both stopped, or bid NT after partner shows one of them stopped and you have the other one stopped). It is conceivable they had the agreement that 3S asks for spade stopper and I suppose you asked them. I am pretty sure that if players were polled, Pass by the heart bidder would be confirmed as "not a logical alternative" under any agreements.

Don't understand this. Something that I am guessing in my head (without telling anyone what my guess is) is AI. Something that somebody else guesses in his head (without telling anyone what his guess is) is AI. It makes no sense at all. What did you mean? Did you mean that it is known to everyone at the table that the other three players are going to guess what the IB bidder's reason for the IB was? Anyway, intentions do not matter and the IB bidder should not volunteer why he made the insufficient bid. What matters are facts. a ) an IB happened b ) the IB will be either accepted or not accepted by the next in turn c ) if not accepted, TD will explain what the law says about replacement bids, and there is no connection to "Why" the IB happened

Jos Jacobs and Marjo Chorus reported some hands from the Playoff between USA Blue and Netherlands Red, in the daily bulletin today. http://www.worldbridge.org/bulletin/09_1%2.../pdf/Bul_06.pdf It pretty much characterizes the match as US being lucky despite their poor judgment in bidding and defense/leads. Euphemisms were used but they were so poorly masked that it might as well have said what I just "translated" it into. Read it yourself and see if you agree. Or am I being too sensitive? PS: Congrats to you all!

Start with 2S. If partner should show a minor (and they are silent), bid 3H and leave it up to partner to raise. This is a nice hand but no texture and bad shape.

Can you find a reference somewhere that "it is not standard". By bridge logic - mine at least - it has to be forcing.

Dbl with all of them. And indeed Dbl and Pass are the only options, anything else is [you pick the ugly adjective].

I don't see this as a problem. 4S looks clear.

3NT. Unless I have (another) gadget to show this hand at a lower level.