peachy

Interesting scenario. This is in effect the same situation as if the defender who asked to see the quitted trick saying: "Partner, no hearts?" except that the defender also broke L66.C If such an inquiry is allowed by the RA - it is allowed in ACBL - then this defender had the right to ask while the trick was not yet quitted, and if after quitting and before anyone has played to the next trick, then just ask instead of breaking L66C and inducing partner to break same law. I don't know what the time limit for such question is but I assume that before play to the next trick. There is also no penalty or rectification specified for breaking L66.C as far as I could find. IMO there is no damage because the defender could have legally just asked. If such inquiries are not allowed by the RA - then this defender is engaging in illegal shenanigans. Even if there is no law to cover these maneuvres, the TD has the power to use his judgment. If I were the TD, I would think damage existed when the declaring side was denied the benefit of an extra trick due to opponent's revoke.

I agree. If they play that XX forces 2C regardless of what suits 1NT opener has, then it is the same class of bid as Lebensohl 2NT which forces partner to bid 3C. It is a relay. Speculating on what the relayer might have is an unnecessary part of the explanation, but if opponent asks "what kind of hands use the relay" then it will be a lengthy answer in case of Lebensohl while in case of 1NT (X) XX the answer is shorter = runout to some suit.

In ACBL alert regs, most doubles are not alertable but this would fall into the "highly unexpected" category and therefor IMO clearly alertable. This double IMO also falls into the "highly insane" category if the meaning indeed is forcing Takeout, but that has nothing to do with your question.

Good suggestion.

I think I would not be happy defending 2DX if partner decided to Pass. 4C and trust we find our heart fit if there is one.

I don't think this is a system-specific bidding problem [2/1 or SAYC etc]. East's Dbl means East has some values but no five-card suit to bid. With both majors and some values, East would likely bid 2C. Being a passed hand, the values are limited whether he doubled or bid 2C. West, the doubler, can do with this information what he thinks is best.

Anything other than 4S should show an ace - which I don't have - after partner has shown long spades. Assumedly not solid or self supporting because the auction would have been 2C-2D-3S with that. Also, I have a minimum responding values [in context with the system]; if I had a bit more, I would bid 3NT but with this, I'll settle for 4S.

I agree with Robin. The accommodation for not writing due to religious reason is pretty simple to do, but surely the player needed to inform the TD's or whathavewe about the need for this accommodation, before play began; and the opposing players deserved an advance notice of this, as a courtesy anyway even if/when/as they had no problem with it.

2S showing spades is natural and not conventional. 2S showing spades and a minor is natural and conventional. This sort of topic has been discussed "everywhere" on occasion and it still keeps popping up. The ACBL GCC language on _this_ is pretty clear; see what ArtK78 quoted.

The reasoning behind the Pass is that partner is in charge. He said 5D. He did not invite to slam.

4C. We bypass 3NT but that is the price in this hand, in case 3NT made and 6C didnt or reward in case both 3NT nd 6C made.

LOL come on. What planet did I accidentally get transported to today? I don't know, what does it look like on that planet... Hope you enjoyed the trip :P Had the seat been anything but second unfav, 1D [for me] is a possibility. But I might still bid 1C.

This is definitely not a WTP. 1C. Opponent didn't open in front of me so the chances it is our hand are better and I don't have to consider lead directors; shape matters in constructive auctions.

Obvious 2S. IMO anything else is a mistake.

Why would the host need to adjust the score, just curious. Trying to think of circumstance but can't come up with one.

2C-2D (at least one king) 3H - 4H (set trump; no ace). Alternatively 2C - 2D (at least one king) 4H (minimum 2C opener with self supporting hearts)

Playing strong NT, 1D opener with 4-4-3-2 is more frequent than a 2C opener, in my experience. If I play weak NT [sometimes I do] the 1D opening with three is rare since much of the hands are opened 1NT and only 15-19HCP 4-4-3-2 are opened 1D. Not going into percentages, that is not my strong suit :)

I think defense is hardest but the most rewarding to get it right, it also contributes to results more because we defend in about half the hands and declare only about 25% of them. Bidding is the easiest. .

If you think everybody in the world plays this way, your world is quite small. I have no strong feelings about garbage stayman. When I played it, the ups and downs seem to level out and Jack summarized well, why. Maybe a search in a database can find out whether garbage stayman is a long time winner. For me, Garbage Stayman is a proven long-term winner (32 years is long term :P ). We play a partscore in our best fit instead of playing 1NT with no chance of making it.

Don't attempt to deal with it on the forums or in public. E-mail abuse@bbo and in the email provide the information about suspicious hands. The cases where similar hands were bid differently could be indicative of cheating if the bid or play decision to underbid, overbid, or weird-bid of this pair always turn out a success.

I got this survey too... I honestly answered I would like to see sectional and more tourneys on line. I added in the other comments I would like to see club championships on line. Anyone who gets this survey should take it... I guess it is about 3 to 5 minutes to fill out. I got the survey e-mail also, but I thought it was a phishing e-mail because there was no ACBL logo anywhere; it was generic in its signature with no name; ACBL has a "Marketing Department", not a "Marketing Team". And finally, there is no mention of this *seventh annual membership survey* [according to the email text] on the ACBL website. You folks seem to think it is a legitimate ACBL survey. I just didn't want to click on some strange zoomerang.com/survey link given that there was no ACBL identifying information in the invite.

First you said, earlier, that it is ACBL-illegal to signal suit preference at trick one. Now you say it is ACBL-illegal to signal suit preference except when dummy has a singleton. What is your source? Link please.

The primary signal has become obsolete (in a sense) in this hand when attitude in spades is already known - partner bid them and I held the first trick with Q. Matter of partnership agreement whether the 2 is then suit preference or count. But if looking at dummy, diamond lead doesn't appear crazy then I would continue diamonds, taking the 2 as suit preference.

Silence is best. Filling the chat area with strings of typ, glp, wdp, typ, wdo, tyo, is so pointless, and it can very easily be seen as patronizing. The only time I think it is good is when a teacher plays with a student and wants to keep up the spirits of a perhaps struggling learner.

Nothing to rule on this 4C bid. It was probably just bad bridge. Did you ask the player why he bid 4C? As to "always do weird things", I would want to find many other hands where weird things were done by them/him/her. Were all the weird things successful operations?