richlp

Thank you both for clearing it up for me.

As I'm reading the posts it appears that, since there is no comparable call, offender's partner will be barred for the duration regardless of what call offender substitutes. But I'm not sure what you mean by "not allow the double." Do you mean the offender cannot substitute a double for the insufficient bid? What would be the basis for this? Not trying to be argumentative, just looking for some extra information. Thanks ......... Rich

I wouldn't open 2H either in 1st or 2nd seat. Not because it is too bad a hand, but because it is unsuitable in the context of disciplined weak 2's. Bad suit, too much outside defense. But with a PH to my right and a pre-empt to my left I would almost certainly balance over a 3rd seat 3D call. Especially considering the kinds of hands that have become 3rd seat 3 minor pre-empts. It may not be right but that's what I would do. Whatever poll the director takes should be phrased as "You play disciplined (ie: traditional) weak 2's. Would you balance?" I suspect that pass is still a LA, but there is no mystery to me.

FW(Little)IW.............. I'm not happy with RHO on this one. As laudable as not wanting to give UI is ................ what kind of UI do you give when dummy comes down and you say "Isn't that the Ace of Diamonds?"

Are EW playing 4-card majors? Is so, why couldn't 4S be natural and what else would it mean if RR had properly explained the bid?

If I were to write a program specifying llNatural = LENGTH(hearts) >= 4 then if heart length is 3 llNatural would be FALSE. My understanding of American is that IF without any other OR clauses is an IF and Only IF.

On a recent BBO hand, partner opened and passed my 1H response with 14 HCP and 3 card support. With 11 tricks on top I justified his judgement by making one exactly (nice pass pard, can't make game). Am I supposed to play like that here??????

FWIW.......I've seen it and done it. Always with "Dummy's good" as my claim statement. If the opponents want to see my hand, of course I show it. As far as being allowed to inspect the hands............I truly do not understand the arguement that this is not legal, or that it sets up all the defenders cards as penalty cards if they contest the claim. Gordon's posts about "Play ceases" seem conclusive to me.

To each his own. For me 4NT is still quantitative after the Stayman bid. Had I wanted simply to ask for Aces I would have bid 4C (Gerber)

"Could have known" falls into the realm of using Douglas Adams' Improbability Drive.

FWLIW........... I usually try to put down the suit led last. The idea is let partner have at least a small opportunity to observe the hand as a whole before focusing on the opening lead. I had never considered that it could be used as a memory aid but reading this thread has convinced me otherwise. OTOH.......I won't get worried about it if an opponent does it for that reason. If they can't remember which suit was led, then being reminded of it will be of very small benefit.

I once had a hand where I had all winners in dummy and all winners in my hand. I forgot about the outstanding (non-master) trump. I was in dummy and claimed, "Dummy's good and I've got the trump left." The director ruled that I would fail to notice that RHO had ruffed one of dummy's winners. I suppose that if that is possible then ruling declarer would fail to notice somebody not following suit is possible. I didn't particularly like that ruling then and I don't like the equivalent here.

If necessary, justifiable homicide. If it only came down to a couple of colorful lumps on SB's face I would rule him negligent for using his face to injure a 90 year old's hand. I would expect a call to ACBL headquarters where a recitation of the facts would lead to a 3 week (however long it would take to finish the event in Reno) suspension for violation of Zero Tolerance. Not sure about result on hand and don't really care.

It doesn't have an impact on the ruling (unless it applies to the midbid vs misinformation question) or what you should have done, but when you agreed Leaping Michaels did you also agree that it applied in non-leaping form such as the current auction?

FWIW.......I'm usually very conservative in these kinds of auctions and would probably pass out 1NT. That may take me out of the "peer" pool for a polling question. A side question for the panel......... Do your partners have a problem passing balanced hands of moderate strength at this vulnerability vs a weak NT? Could this hesitation mean that partner has close to bidding values with an unbalanced hand and chose not to bid because of the vulnerability? If so, then does the hesitation suggest a misfit and that pass might be the winning action? I'm usually pretty bad at figuring out the answers to these sorts of questions (what does the hestitation suggest). I've been ruled against because I got the "suggestion" wrong and took the "winning" action for the "wrong" reason so I usually just make the bid I think is right and let the director (or committee) make the ultimate decision.