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.

Apparantly I'm not as up-to-date on the rules as I should be......From David Stevenson's page "All about Revokes" "If the revoker (not his partner) won a later trick with a card he could legally have played to the revoke trick then the penalty is two tricks." Has this been changed????????????

I'm glad somebody else feels this way. My college roommate is now an ACBL National Director and we've discussed this. We've talked about a large number of ACBL appeals cases and in a significant majority of them my analysis of what is a logical alternative, and what is suggested by the UI, has been so far from what the appeals committee decided and what the commentators discussed as to make my attempts to work it out almost meaningless. I'm willing to take a bad score in UI cases if there are LAs and my choice is suggested. I'll take the committee's judgement with good grace. But I don't want to take a bad score because I misjudged what the LAs actually are. Yes, I'm aware that this contravenes the letter of the law - but I think it's a practical solution to a difficult situation.

I don't understand 3♥ (it wouldn't be forcing for me (I don't see why it couldn't be a 3-6-1-3 count). I might bid 4♥ because of the diamond duplication but I would probably bid 3♠ to show my control and slam interest. I don't think 4♥ is the right ethical bid. Partner's 2♦ presumably showed a weak hand with diamonds, I invited and parter (for me) accepted showing a heart stopper rather than a suit. I'm not sure what the LA's are but I'm certain that 4♥ is suggested by the UI. I'm astonished that "a couple" of directors felt it should roll back to 3D. Regardless of what 3♦ "should" be in light of the transfer, there WAS a 1NT opener and West can't stop short of game.

I came across this sort of situation in real life about 45 years ago. Playing in a Sectional Swiss in Upstate New York I was in a slam and opening leader led a diamond after a 20 pause. RHO won the Ace and, after another 20 second pause, switched. Asked why she didn't give the ruff RHO said "It took you so long to lead it that it couldn't have been a singleton." Even as a relative novice myself, I was astonished, not at the reasoning, but that anybody would actually SAY it out loud.

I could, of course, be wrong, buy my understanding of Standard American bidding is that a new suit by responder is always forcing unless opener's rebid was 1NT (and I've gotten bad results with pickup partners who thought the new suit after the NT rebid WAS forcing). Is that not also true in the UK? If so, wouldn't a non-forcing 2D bid be alertable as having an unexpected meaning? If it were forcing, would that be alertable or is whether or not it is forcing ambiguous enough that neither one should be alerted? Not explaining myself well, I hope you understand my question. Edit: Never mind. Just realized that the 1S bid is the equivalent of 1NT and that 2D would be non-forcing for me.

"If most would bid 5♥, why did he bid only 3♥ the first time? Most players will raise a weak 2 to 4 immediately with 4-card support." I don't think his only bidding 3♥ should be relevant to his action over 4♠. Put it in the "why I lose at bridge" column but I don't think it's spectacularly absurd to hope that NS either won't bid 4♠ or that you'll have a better idea of what to to over 4♠ if they don't bid it under pressure. Unfortunately, the better idea came from partner's hesitation. "If he had short spades, I might agree that there's no LA to 5♥. But with a perfectly square hand, I expect many players will consider passing, and quite a few will do so." I'm one of those who would have passed 4♠. Opposite a typical modern NV vs V weak 2 bid I think 7 tricks could easily be the max we can make on offense.

I have a question about a different, but I think related, situation. LHO trumps the trick and then says, "oops, I have a diamond" The director is called, establishes the trump as a penalty card, and instructs the player to play a diamond. While fanning his hand to pick out a diamond, the 10 falls out. It was clearly not played with intent. Can LHO substitute another card for his accidentally exposed 10 of diamonds - leaving him with 2 penalty cards? Is this situation sufficiently different from the original post to warrant a different answer?

I think the question of whether to adjust or not is, in this case, different from the question of whether or not to issue a PP. If, as I think it does, the poll here indicates that Pass is not a LA, then there has been no damage and there should be no adjustment. If we accept that West's reasoning really was, "I doubled because partner thought I was weak" that is a clear violation of using UI and one that I think warrants a PP of some sort and (at this level of competition) more than just education/warning/etc.

I do it once every two or three sessions. I see it as a fairly light-hearted way of enjoying the game. I can't remember ever doing it for something other than an Ace or King but my memory could be flawed. I don't play above the club level any more but I think I would do it in a more serious event as well (I like to have fun regardless of the level of event - especially when I'm playing up and getting killed). If it caused any problems for my opponents (even careless ones as was the case here) I would apologize and waive any penalty.

Nope......Not too old.........very good