peachy

I'm not confident about it but I will bid 1NT now. I would not open 1NT with 4-5/5-4 majors. Had the 4-5 been another combination, 1NT opening is okay, for me.

Opener has extras, most likely balanced, no 4-card hearts, and no clear action to take. For me this is a type of "cards" double, more leaning toward penalty, definitely not takeout oriented. Responder can do as he wishes, often pass.

2C will be unlikely to be passed if pd is weak while 2H might be passed with hands where 4H is cold. Really hate not showing hearts but hate even more JS in hearts.

Yes, it might have woken him up but possibly not if he thought all his trumps were high or if he had miscounted them. However, he did not play the hand. He did not play the trump. He claimed and as is proper, play stopped. I think it is outside the case to discuss which events or happenings could have also woken him up because none of that happened. There was time for thought before *and* after he woke up, and he never made a second claim or stated an alternate line of play. The consensus here seems to be that the TD is to figure out what would have happened if he had played the hand out, with TD assuming declarer to be aware of all facts, and then present to the declarer the alternate line of play. However, we know for a fact that declarer isn't aware of all facts and the TD has no way of knowing if he _would have been_ when playing the hand out instead of making a false claim. He might have thought all his trumps were high. He might have miscounted trumps. The claim itself is evidence that he had NOT considered all common possibilities in his claim. For TD to assume him to be aware that all his trumps are not high and that he has a proper count of them, if he should play the hand out, is too generous. I am open to education or law quotes if anyone cares to give them.

I'm a little confused. What do you mean "continue"? Declarer didn't put down the trump queen. He claimed and accompanied the claim with a statement "drawing trumps". There was no play because play ceased when he claimed. *If* it is legal for him to make a different claim statement after the pregnant pause woke him up, he *didn't make it*, even after he got some time to think. I still think he does not have the right to make a new statement and certainly does not have the right to resume playing the hand by laying down the Q of trumps when the law says play ceases. I may be a little more than a little confused though, but I still think there was one claim statement and declarer is bound to that one.

Hasty claim. Shudda, cudda tested trumps first but he has claimed and his statement was "drawing trumps" which means "exhausting all opponents' trumps and then the rest of the tricks are his". I think he is stuck with his claim and the opponents get however many tricks they get when claimer's clearly stated plan is executed, ie. he plays all his trumps, then South gets in with the trump 9 and NS cash however many high cards/clubs they have left to cash. Not that it matters here when claimer did not make a new claim after he woke up, but I don't think there is a law that after opponents' inaction [neither accepted nor not accepted the claim] wakes up the declarer, he can make a new and different claim statement. Or is there? However, he actually did _not make_ a new statement so the original one stands. Maybe this is too harsh? If I were the claimer, I would accept that ruling - carelessness costs.

I did not vote because it is a judgment call. Much depends if it is MPs or IMPs, what the vulnerability is, is partner a passed or unpassed hand, how many cards I have in their opening suit, how good my suit is, am I expecting partner to be the opening leader, is my suit a major or a minor, do I have an alternate place to play or decent support for other suits if they double us for penalty OR a good enough suit and hand that I can survive a Dbl, and so on. Occupying space is a consideration but typically not after they open 1M, only when they opened 1D and my suit is clubs. If you give the conditions and some example hands, then voting is simpler.

What is the "better method" you are talking about? This is not intended as a dog yapping at your ankles. I'd like to know but if you prefer not to tell, NP:)

Just curious about something. 1C-1S-2C-2D, you say it is NMF and I agree. Next you suggest opener should bid bid 2H and you said: (force to show good hand, partner already showed no 4 cards H) When did partner deny 4 card hearts? When playing NMF, 1C-1S-2C-2H is natural and not forcing. When playing NMF, 1C-1S-2C-3H is typically agreed to show 5-5 majors and can be agreed to be either forcing, invitational, or weak; I like it invitational because forcing hands can always go through NMF and then bid hearts [forcing] even if opener did not bid 2H. So using NMF can indeed have a 4-card heart suit that has not yet been shown.

RKCB really? If partner void or singleton in spades, why did he bid 3S to ask if we can play NT (I assume this is what it meant)? With GF hand and spade singleton he could have bid something more clear like 4S splinter, a new suit, RKC, or something after we have established a fit in diamonds. It sounds like opponents have good spades and are bidding on air, but it is not out of the picture that responder has doubleton spade. Anyway, I Dbl to say I suggest defending. If that gets overruled, then it probably means we have slam and that the 3S bid did have a singleton spade afterall. Void is quite unlikely in the given auction.

Like what? I have one partner with whom the agreement is to open 3NT with a broken minor of about 8 cards, because we play Namyats and 4C and 4D are not available for natural bids. The fact of the matter is, neither one of us has opened 3NT while this agreement has been valid (about two years) and I play with him at least once or twice a week on BBO pretty regularly. It is about time to go back to Gambling 3NT, that at least comes up every now and then and using 3NT for 25-27 or some such NT hand just does not make sense to me. Maybe I should have started a new thread... what is the best use of a 3NT opening in various systems.

I Dbl. 4333 shape is awful so I wouldn't Dbl except with 14+ when the hand is not suitable for a NT overcall either by range, by no stoppers, by concentration of values in two suits, or some such combination. Some suitable 13HCP hands are included.

Either weak or strong, "normal" strength hands like about 10-14 (much depends on actual shape and location of the values) overcall naturally. For me, the aim of the Michaels bid is typically to find a sac or a game, not to just give free distribution info to the opponents while partner is in the dark as to what the Michaels bidder's values are. There are many Michaels styles in all skill levels. I like this one because it seems to work.

You said it all. Particularly about South who acted in a way which reveals that he did not believe that his own explanation of the 2NT bid was correct.

This is similar scenario as in you Case 1. If it had been Dbl instead of 4D, that could be trying to cater to UI, covering all bases. However, I think it is clear (to me, that is) to bid 4D with or without partner's hesitation. Maybe this could be a hand to poll before ruling, but really I think 4D should be allowed.

I would question a Dbl by North (which caters to all hands South could have, *if* there was UI). However, South is allowed to ask about opponents' bidding and it is not UI that he asks but it COULD be UI if his questions were phrased in some leading manner. I would think there is not enough information so 3S bid stands and there is no infraction, unless the form of South's question presented some UI.

No way running now. 1S the round before was better than 2H.

Asking for control of the unbid suit, diamonds; opener passes or bids 6S with a diamond control. If responder needed both a diamond control and good quality trumps, then he must have exceptional hand to have bid 3S (slam potential) instead of 4S (game) but he can bid 4H, denying diamond control and see what opener does.

If partner has 4-card hearts which is VERY likely, my hand provides one defensive trick, maybe two if hearts miraculously split 2-2. Don't want to bid 4NT for two places to play when I know we have at least 5-3 heart fit so the choices are Pass, Double and 5H. I will Dbl, partner is allowed to remove with spade void or otherwise very offensive values.

What is the agreement on the X? I assume "cards" or "negativ/ish" with defensive tricks potential. If it was "cards" then 4NT could logically be an offensive hand with good long diamonds, a club stopper, and no 4-card majors. I dunno... I don't have agreement, but I do play X as *negative but with values suited for defense as well as offense*. If it was "penalty", then 4NT can only be slam investigation, thus plain Blackwood since no suit agreement exists.

I play 4-suit transfers, with "bid the suit if like it". This provides structure for allowing us to play in whichever minor or minors responder might have. 1N-3C is Puppet Stayman and 1N-3M is singleton with 5/4 or 4/5 in minors but the 3D bid is still idle...seems like wasted resource somehow :)

This seems to pop up from time to time. "hand result to be skewed for the rest of the field" is and must not be of any consideration when a TD is making a ruling. You say it should be the goal to not let a ruling skew the results for the field. IMO, it would be a bad goal. It will be impossible to remove luck factors that skew the results for the field [crazy bid 7NT that happens to make, for example] and if that is attempted, the laws need to be first changed to allow such considerations, but at that point the game ceases to be bridge.

It is truly an aside, completely irrelevant. What other tables do, has nothing to do with ruling on the case at hand.

Self-alerting "Michaels" is MI if their agreement is that 2C shows H+D or that 2C shows any two-suiter with one major suit or some other which is not "both majors". But this is an old dilemma - some folks use the name of an established convention for something other than what the convention is. It is also possible that the bidder knew he was supposed to have majors but bid 2C anyway. It is possible the bidder forgot what Michaels is. It is possible they had no agreement over a strong artificial 1C opening. Anyway, as others have said, more information is needed to determine what happened and whether any adjusted score is in order.

Would 1NT-2C-2D-2H/2S promise invitational with only four cards in the bid major? Meaning, 2NT not only doesn't promise a 4-card major but actually denies holding one? Anyway, I think bidding anything over the invite is accepting the invite so 3D shouldn't be nonforcing. However, if I now bid 3D, I will have destroyed any potential advantage of opening 1NT with this hand by telling the opponents too much, so I need to either bid 3NT or Pass. 3NT for me.