gordontd

Do you have anything to back up this assertion? His experience.... Since not one other person has so far suggested they would have bid 1NT on the previous round with this hand, it can hardly be correct to describe it as "standard".

I agree. If we can get it one off, it doesn't matter if we were making 2♠.

Do you have anything to back up this assertion?

There feels like a contradiction or a typo in this. However, I think 2♠ is the truly modern approach - because 2NT would show six spades and 3♦ would show extras. So, all hands with only five spades and no extras will rebid 2♠.

So you play that a high reverse shows extra, but not much extra?

What did you mean by "(and compare)" in your original post?

I agree with the first part of this, but I'm not sure about the second - although it seems to be the majority view in this thread. Holding the South hand, what could my partner have been thinking of over 5♣? Certainly not doubling. Without a doubt partner was thinking of bidding more, with extra distribution. Does that not suggest 5♠ over double?

One of the other proponents of this idea has managed simultaneously to suggest that TDs are lazy and look to avoid too much work!

I find your description puzzling. Unless you reversed the order of events, such that the revoke happened before the three rounds of trumps were drawn, there shouldn't have been a two-trick penalty ("rectification"), and the trick you call the revoke trick would not have been the revoke trick. But you can't have reversed the order of events, because you say "RHO had already shown out of trumps". However the answer to the underlying question is "how many tricks would have been made had there been no revoke?"

Whether or not it's sleazy, I think it's ineffective. If you play too quickly, your opponent will react with surprise whatever they have in their hand.

Both.

L74C

It would also need to be unrelated to the infraction to invoke L12C1{b}.

Not by three-quarters of the table. It is this that I think distinguishes it from the situations in the Laws (rather than the definitions) that talk of "presumed declarer" & "presumed dummy".

I've had a further conversation with him since then, and it seems we were both wrong. Blackshoe & Bluejak are correct that he was entitled to an AC.

I had reason to check on this yesterday, when a player wished to appeal a DP. It seems to me that the words of the Law might be interpreted two ways: 1) That an appeal can be insisted on, but that the AC would not be able to do more than recommend that the TD reconsider, or 2) That there is no right to an appeal, but that an appeal committee convened for another purpose (regarding the same matter) could recommend that the TD reconsider the DP. I spoke to Max Bavin, and his reading of it, and his understanding of precedent in this matter, was that the second one applied. Clearly it is undesirable to be forced to convene committees and ask people to give up their time to serve on them when they have no power to over-rule. Furthermore, because it is under the same clause, L91A, a result of allowing players to insist on an AC for DPs would be that they would also be able to insist on an AC if they were suspended for the rest of a session, and this would have severe consequences for the smooth running of events. My understanding is that this is the reason that "The Director’s decision under this clause is final and may not be overruled by an appeals committee". Consequently I refused the player's request for an AC, and recommended that he pursued his grievance by writing to the L&E committee.

I think this joke has gone over my head.

Rightly or wrongly, neither I nor the people I consulted with thought that was what the question indicated, and we are surprised Gordon thinks this is the only reason. We believed that East was merely curious. I don't think the words you quote mean that I think this is the only reason. I wonder if you think East would have followed a similar path of asking and passing had her shape been 2344? This is a surprising combination of behaviours: usually those who are reluctant to ask about opponents' alerted calls are those who think that asking might be treated as passing UI. Maybe. But you are ascribing behaviour to someone not known to us who normally plays in another jurisdiction. As a person he was ... Let us say a little different from most English players. I don't think I was ascribing behaviour to anyone - I was commenting on the behaviour ascribed to him by someone else. He's not unknown to me, and I can't think what you think is "a little different" about him that is relevant to him not asking questions, or to his awareness of the EBU's approach to UI & asking questions. So the question doesn't suggest bidding 4♥ over passing, whether or not it suggests hearts?

sorry the English translation for "got lucky" is not "did well" :lol: Actually it is. Perhaps the American translation is different.

This is a surprising combination of behaviours: usually those who are reluctant to ask about opponents' alerted calls are those who think that asking might be treated as passing UI.

Not strong enough to bid 2♥

I don't know that it's common, though I know some play it this way. The trouble with this hand is that if your partner responds 2♦, forcing to game, you won't have any certainty of making game even if your partner has trump support and the king of trumps or an ace. That being the case, I think 2♣ is simply an overbid. The broader problem with your method is that it's unclear in which circumstances you can stop short of game, and what you need to do to avoid being passed out in a part-score when you want to investigate further for slam.

With one of my partners I'd rebid 2♥, which is a transfer, and then bid 3NT which shows this hand. Otherwise I'd rebid 3♣. Rebidding 3NT is not terrible, but it does make it harder to find 4♥ or 4♠ when they are better contracts.

Five losers & 4.5 quick tricks. Seems a bit light to me. I'll start with 1♠ and force to game if partner responds. If not, we may well not be making game.

Teach your partner to respond 1♠ with those hands. And perhaps you should have rebid 2♣ - after all it would have been correct for your partner to respond 1♥ with 4-5 in the majors. In any case, 3NT seems like a mild overbid.