peachy

The word "gross" is pretty fuzzy. How many points do you have to deviate from your agreed strength for it to be a gross deviation? 1-2 is generally agreed to be not enough, while most would probably consider 5 or 6 to be gross. But 3-4 is in the fuzzy category. And that's just when you count Work points, it becomes more tricky when you have to account for individual hand evaluation. One player might look at a hand and think it's 11 HCP, while another might decide that it's worth 13 HCP because of the 5-card suit and good spot cards; if the former opens it as a 15-17 1NT he would probably be considered to be psyching, but the latter would only be deviating by 2 points. The word 'gross' is a bit like pornography. Hard to define exactly where the limits of 'gross' are but you recognize it when you see it. As to hand evaluation, if both partners in a partnership follow approximately same evaluation techniques/judgment, and upgrade or downgrade in similar fashion - there is no psych. It becomes a matter of proper disclosure.

The definition of a psychic bid as given in the laws, is not that fuzzy IMO. I think it would help in discussing psychs to remember what it is: "A gross and deliberate deviation from partnership agreement as to suit length or general strength" The definition does not have anything to do with the reason why a player makes the GROSS and DELIBERATE deviation from PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. Also, the deviation must be from partnership agreement, not a deviation from standard or what "you", "I", or "somebody else" considers standard. For example, using Ogust with a weak hand with support is not a psych if the partnership has agreed to use it that way.

"Misinformation" is the legal term. Introducing new terms is going to make it hard to discuss a matter involving the laws/rules of the game. When an answer to opponent's question fails to give the partnership agreement, it is Misinformation (there are other types of misinformation so don't reverse this statement :) ). It makes no difference how or why the failure happens, whether it is non-information, wrong information, or incomplete information; it is all misinformation.

If you _had_ an agreement what 2H means in this auction, then "I don't know" was misinformation. It does not matter WHY partner does not tell what the agreement is, opponents are entitled to hear what the partnership agreement is. If you _did not have_ an agreement what 2H here is, then your partner could have made it clear and said "we don't have an agreement" or "we have never discussed this". Answering "I don't know" is a bit unclear and does not inform the opponents whether there is an agreement but he forgot what it is, or whether there is no agreement. Just my two cents. I don't think TD is needed unless it was a case of Misinformation = you had an agreement and partner forgot it.

Even old people like me open this hand. Pass is out of the question.

To play by the laws and regulations can never be unethical, IMO. If you can give an example when playing by the rules is unethical, I'd like to see it. However, I agree with JLall that psyching against novices in club games is not right (even when it is still legal to do so).

It is bizarre. As others have said, probably misclick if online, no matter what the agreements over opponent's 1NT.

The TD made an error, perhaps pressured by your star opponents. Psychis bids are legal unless excessive in number or made with same partner frequently so partner can begin to expect them. When playing as sub with a stranger, the chance of prior partnership experience on psychic bids is zero. As to the adjustment - if TD did not rule and adjustment when he was called and he did not return after the hand to do it, he cannot go back after the game on his own and change the score, EVEN IF THERE WERE LAW BASED REASON TO DO SO, without informing both sides. Here, there were no legal reasons. I think you need to contact Jacki@ACBL who I believe is the chief TD for BBO ACBL games.

I choose 3S upon which partner will cue if he has one. A simple overcall shows a good hand and five (or more) cards. Jump overcall shows a better hand and very good six cards. The given hand is almost too good for that but there is greater risk at not describing this hand immediately. In terms of order of various strengths for various Db/Overcall/Jump actions, it is not a matter of general strength, it is a matter of various types of hands.

I consider it unusual agreement to have support doubles on the 3-level. How is it working for you?

Surely there were more clues at the table. What was the auction? What were the diamond spots played at trick 1 and 2? Do we play standard or UDCA signals?

3S, but not because "majors rule". Because only 9 tricks is the impossible goal instead of ten. I estimate that bidding leads to a smaller minus than passing.

With my partners, first case is easy and clear: balanced maximum with only 3-card support, suggests defending (lead trump) unless opener's hand is unsuitable for defense. It is possible to find 4S in this sequence sometimes! Second is takeout oriented, short clubs but not void, and adequate defense if partner leaves in. In either case, if the X is left in, we should be prepared to also double 3D if they correct; or else successfully declare 3S. Vulnerability matters in all decisions.

Whatever 3NT means (in some of my partnerships, a solid club suit), now 4D.

Lebensohl? This is new to me that Lebensohl could be applied in the OP auction.

"something odd is going on" is much too vague, from the point of law. It is still my (I mean, the player's) responsibility to consider it, figure out what it might mean, and then pick a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. Here, it is impossible to determine what the *something odd* means, just as you yourself listed several possibilities. Once it is established (IMO) legal to pick any alternative, I think I am legally allowed to pick any call. Perhaps blackshoe reads this thread and comments. I don't consider myself a *top bridge law expert* of course, but pretty knowledgeable.

Our side has 13+10HCP, or somewhere in that vicinity at the minimum. Trying to suddenly stop at 3C makes no sense. It is forcing.

Many play systems on over an overcall 1NT, same as an opening 1NT. Did you have an agreement what 4D would be had you opened 1NT and they overcall 3S? I know this is slightly different scenario than after righty has opened 1S, but for example Dbl would be negative, I assume - even without agreements - and that Texas transfers are off because the 4D was not a jump, aand that if Texas transfers were not agreed, then there are no Texas transfers. Also assume that 3S was preemptive. Anyway, my answers to your questions. 1. Bid 4H. A flexible bid in uncharted waters, should imply diamond support. 2. It is impossible to determine what the UI from the break in tempo suggests, let alone demonstrably suggests. The only thing which is sure: partner had alternative action in mind. No way to figure what the alternative action could be and there may have been more than one alternative action. 3. Had it been possible to determine what the UI from the hesitation suggested, then it would be wrong to ignore it all and "bid what you always were going to bid" because the Law says one must not do that (ignore it).

I don't like the 3C rebid. Maybe in your system there was no other choice. Does your partner agree this hand qualifies as a 3C rebid? Anyway, assuming 3C was indeed light on promised values, I pass now. Need very specific cards from responder for slam to have a chance and also, if partner was serious and not just curious about slam, he would have bid something other than 4H.

This is not a matter of "behavioral standards". It is a matter of law. Benoit35 did what the law required him to do, perhaps instinctively, perhaps because he knows what the law requires him to do/not do. If instinctively, it shows a high degree of natural integrity and strength of character. I applaud that. The director was wrong and he is incompetent in not knowing what the law says about a situation like this one.

I think it is well worth it to tweak the major suit raise structures. If using 2NT for "invit or better raise" then IMO it is best to have opener's 3C rebid cover all good hands, to leave max room for investigation and exchange of information.

This is nowhere even close to 15-17 1NT. One can use whatever evaluation techiques outside the raw HCP, and it remains a balanced minimum opening.

The 2C overcall dug the grave.

IMO, any interesting tidbits about what is happening at the table only add to the enjoyment for spectators, making it feel like you are "there" in the room, so I like to hear those from the operator if he is still able to keep up pace and key in auctions and plays fast and accurate. However, I agree with you that the operator should let the commentators analyse and he should just provide the service he has volunteered to give and not do hand analysis. IMO, his comment about the hesitation was innocuous and in no way improper. It was in the same class as "so-and-so is looking puzzled/deep in though/thinking" or "his cards resting on the table" or some similar comment about what the players are doing at the time.

In the lower-for-lower defense, I play 3C is "limit or better heart raise" and 3D is "limit or better with 5+ spades" while 3H and 3S are "non-invitational noise". The gameforcing hands are included in the 3C and 3D bids, if we have support or if we have spades. Other types of gameforcing hands will Dbl first, seeking mainly to penalize them since there is likely no fit for us.