sfi

Agreed. It is pretty simple to talk to a director and get a quick rundown on what is alertable and/or announcaeble before you start play in a new country. Given the differences around the world, it's expected and even desirable to have regulations differ.

Meh - Goren wouldn't play Goren now either, so it's hardly a big stretch.

That's very sad - I quite like the name.

I always thought it stood for 'Goren in a Box', but I could be wrong.

1NT looks normal and uncontroversial.

It sounds like partner should have foreseen the danger and done nothing.

That's one of the common problems playing a relay system - it's hard to pinpoint strength. The one I play has lots of breaks into cooperative bidding where this might be a problem. Even though I notice this auction is the only way to game force here, I still don't think my hand is unusual enough to bid on.

For it to be right you need two extra tricks. I don't think that the extra club fills this role well enough to overrule partner here, so pass. In fact, I would expect 4C to be forward-going within context of what I've shown and I really don't want to suggest the 8th club makes slam a possibility on this hand.

Apologies - I meant all my regular partnerships. Earlier post is now modified.

Evaluating this as a 3 count looks poor. If partner has a 2NT rebid I want to be in game, so I respond. After 1S I can handle partner's likely actions, with a 3C rebid being the only one likely to lead to a bad score: Over 1NT I'll play 2D (2C asks partner to bid 2D in all my regular partnerships) I'll pass 2C I'll strongly raise 2D I'll show a weak hand with long diamonds over 2H I'll bid game over a raise (which isn't going to work well if partner raised on 3, but meh) I'll show diamonds over 2NT and we'll get to game somewhere If partner's going to get upset that I don't pass 1C with this hand, they need to get over it. (Maybe this is the thread I should direct partners to. ;) )

Dummy certainly took it as a claim, which is pretty solid evidence that South's actions are within the expected range of claiming for this player. If you want the legal justification, Law 68A states: Nothing about how elaborate or clear it needs to be. Given that North picked up dummy's cards I wouldn't buy the argument that it was simply muttered under declarer's breath.

That's the semi-forcing NT being talked about in the section you quoted.

I'm not directing my partners to this thread, at the very least. Many years ago a friend of mine alerted just such a bid at a US nationals, because she and her partner had had a discussion six months before at the bar and had a similar understanding of the underlying principles of what actions might mean. She thought the opponents ought to know, but was ruled against because they had an illegal understanding. How to avoid this sort of thing once it has come up? It really is a bit of an Alice in Wonderland situation, isn't it? I don't see why having solid agreements here is even frowned upon let alone discussed in regulations.

Partner, vul vs not, forced us to the 5 level. I'm not sure I'd want to overrule just because I have a weak hand. But you're right, it's a possible reason to accept and pass. Which is why it's worth thinking about how partner might interpret the actions you could have chosen and didn't when deciding what to do. For some reason the partnership can't have actual agreements in situations like this, at least in areas I've played regularly. I'm not sure what the reasoning is, but working through these things is limited to logic alone. On a personal note, a few years ago my partner and I had a case where the opponents made an insufficient bid at the two level in a competitive auction. The director did not give my partner the option of accepting, which meant she could not make what would have to have been a game try and we missed out on the game. After much consultation among the directors (it was discussed overnight at a major event), the score was adjusted by the head director without going to appeal. To this day the director jokes about his mistake every time he comes to my table.

Yes, West has UI. West also has AI that East chose to accept the insufficient bid and double, so I would not expect there to be any damage. It would take a truly extraordinary hand in West for me to pull this double - even with 7-6 it could easily be wrong unless I have slam in my hand. It's worth thinking about what accepting the bid and passing would logically show. To me that would suggest values but no clear action in East - a hand that would pass a double but with values that could be useful in a minor suit contract. Partner's action is more committal than that.

That's the nature of language - it's imprecise and here it describes a convention rather than simply the generic english language usage of the term. We all know what semi-forcing means in this context, but it's neither specifically sign-off nor invitational. In fact, a semi-forcing 1NT can be either, while the Standard American version of it is not invitational.

Who knows? Maybe because play was over and are confirming to partner that they really did have another diamond as well as the king. Maybe because dummy helped confuse the situation by gathering up the cards. Whatever the reason, the chance they were going to play the D9 on the actual trick had play continued is, shall we say, small. To summarise the original post, declarer claims, people pick up cards, East shows a small diamond as part of the process. How South can try to claim an extra trick is beyond belief.

Whether or not a bid is alertable is not influenced by the pair's bidding system. The alert rules often assume a "standard" system for the jurisdiction, but that's a different thing. In this case, the unalerted meaning of 1H - 1NT would likely be something like 6-10, not 4 spades and not 3 hearts. There may be some variation, but the expected meaning is non-forcing. If you are playing it as forcing the alert rules are likely to require either an alert or an announcement, even if the opponents know you play 2/1. That way the opponents don't need to be familiar with your system - they just need to know what is non-alertable where they are playing.

This is a fairly normal ruling situation for all levels of director, so they should (and do, in my experience) know this one well. There is no room within the laws to exercise discretion apart from a determination of whether a sufficient bid has the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient one, which is not quite the same as the out of date options you quote. As biggerclub pointed out, you missed the first option, which is for East to accept the insufficient bid. Doing so and doubling has to be the percentage action, since often North will just choose to pass (barring partner) and you are stuck playing in one of your singletons.

A claim was made so play stops at that point. The play afterwards is simply not relevant, so -1.

Well, 4C is forcing in any standard sort of system, so I don't really see partner having much reason to be annoyed. Not playing Gerber in these sorts of situations, I would expect it to be a club control looking for a diamond slam - a hand that is unsuitable for 3NT for some reason. As to your actions, 3D is an underbid but not ridiculously so. I would probably have bid opened 1D planning to rebid 2NT, which happens to give partner a good picture of the fit and values. After a 1C bid, 2NT is probably the best option despite the fit. If I choose that, I would definitely sit a 3NT raise. On the actual auction you should probably just sit 3NT anyway.

Slam's pretty good opposite a sub-minimum such as xxxx Axxx Axxx x, so East's bidding is a reasonable shot. West's double, on the other hand, is just silly. As is South's opening bid. They both deserve to have the North-East hands switched, when the final contract would likely be 5DX making an overtrick. N-S would never find the slam (although North may find a redouble), but West risks East bidding 5D for -1100. I'm not sure who would be getting the good score, but neither West nor South would be able to take credit for it.

Maybe, but what is the likelihood of that compared to a hand that has good values and secondary spade support but no clear action? Even if the actual hand may not be what is expected, the break in tempo definitely suggests bidding will be more successful in the long run than a smooth pass would. As mycroft said, the only real question is whether pass is a logical alternative.

It's not about courage or safety. There are entirely valid reasons why this hand may not be suitable for a weak 2 in this partnership, and I'm certain this hand would be within the strength range of their agreements. Thinking that North will continue to pass just because they didn't open the first time is a poor argument - not everyone plays like you do. And yes, opening initially may be safer than bidding here. That doesn't necessarily make passing a logical alternative for someone who passed as dealer.

I don't see the initial pass as suggesting this at all. Surely if you pass, you do so because it doesn't fit an initial 2-level action but you plan to show it by bidding later. For instance, the outside ace, moderate suit quality, and 3 hearts are all negative features for an initial preempt, but don't stop the hand from having reasonable playing strength. In fact, I see passing as less likely after the initial pass rather than more. You know partner will now play you for a flawed weak two, whatever that looks like in the partnership, and won't hang you with moderate values. In fact, I would feel constrained to bid if I had UI that partner were unusually weak for this auction. So bidding here looks obvious to me.