gordontd

This sort of wild claim does your argument no service Nigel. If true, I wonder why we don't see such a large number of similar disasters online and when playing with screens, in both of which situations players don't know whether their partners have alerted. Certainly misunderstandings can happen, but I really take issue with "a couple of enormous scores per session".

The question is about responders' reverses, not openers'.

I play it as only a one-round force with a couple of my partners. We prefer to bid both suits in the natural order with something like a 4135 11-count. But I acknowledge that playing it as GF is standard.

We don't have pre-alerting here (where jallerton is posting from), or rather it takes the form of properly filling out the convention card and my guess is that is what he is asking for, as well as full explanations when asked.

Really? And has less of a choice to make when he has three cards than when he has one?

I was citing Law 73F.

I don't see it like that Ron. I think Jeffrey is making the point (correctly in my view) that quite a lot of players are less likely to fully disclose their understandings about lead styles than they would be about their bidding styles.

My opponents ask about our overcall style and I tell them it's very sound at the two level. That's disclosure but not alerting.

No. I don't know which requirement of Law 73F you think does not apply. He has violated Law 73D by not being "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". It has resulted in damage to his innocent opponent. He has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action (hesitation & shrug). His innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from it. He could have known that the action could work to his benefit.

I think "nonsense" is the polite way of expressing what I want to reply to this.

I think Brian Callaghan & Chris Duckworth use them.

This has been a suggested explanation for Martin Hoffman's skillful declarer play.

I agree with the principle that class of player does not simply refer to ability, but it can be hard to judge these things. I've seen juniors who are quite conservative and elderly players who are quite wild, though of course they are not the norm.

I seem to remember a case where an appeals committee considered that being juniors put a pair into a class of player who were more likely to take aggressive actions.

I'm not sure I fully understand the question. I'm not likely to have a club control on this auction, although I may well be in a position to infer that partner has a club shortage.

I'd expect it to be a hand that wants to raise to 5♥ but would like a diamond lead if they continue to 6♣.

I can see nothing on page 124 that looks lie this situation, and the one on page 221 (described as takeout) doesn't really seem the same to me either. Since there are those who think the explanation for the given auction is that partner has a side four-card heart suit, there doesn't seem to be much utility in a takeout double here. I could however have a trump stack over the club bidder.

You jump to 3NT with a hand that wasn't strong enough to open 1NT. What do you do with a hand that was too strong to open 1NT?

It's penalty. What puzzles me is your partner's 2♠ bid - what can he have that didn't want to open 1♠ yet now wants to bid 2♠?

It has all the hallmarks of something that was written by a committee. I don't think many others share your confidence in its accuracy. It does still seem to be functioning, although I couldn't find you there.

The original ruling was that declarer got one of the final three tricks (based on finessing the D10). This was upheld by the AC and the deposit was kept. The appeal to the national authority was heard (this is not automatic as certain criteria have to be fulfilled before such an appeal is heard) and also upheld the original ruling but returned the deposit from the first appeal.

OK, and you called it Baronised Acol?

Does anyone still play this? I think it was a minority treatment even in the 70s.

The booklet defined SAYC and preceded BBO.

The strength and forcing nature of 2/1 responses, with various consequences.