[mycroft]

The ACBL uses this wording frequently, when their intention is "partner will not play for...and the system has no way to find out if..." whatever minor exception they're allowing.

I don't run from 2♣ with "best chance of a fit", even if the fit on very rare occasions could be X-2. I don't bid as if it could be 2. I just don't worry about it. I don't alert the 2♣ rebid. If you do, then you should.

[hautbois]

 nige1, on 2013-December-04, 18:24, said:

Pass must be a logical alternative; partner seems to have considered a weakness take-out; that suggests that bidding may be more successful than festering in 1NX.

I don't follow the reasoning here, or I misinterpret the first semi-colon. I thought the determination of LA was completely separate and distinct from determining whether the action is demonstrably suggested. That is, pass can only be a logical alternative if other players in a similar position but without the UI would seriously consider the action and some actually take it or whatever the current ACBL definition is. The UI should have no determination on whether an action is an LA.

[nige1]

 hautbois, on 2013-December-05, 13:00, said:

I don't follow the reasoning here, or I misinterpret the first semi-colon. I thought the determination of LA was completely separate and distinct from determining whether the action is demonstrably suggested. That is, pass can only be a logical alternative if other players in a similar position but without the UI would seriously consider the action and some actually take it or whatever the current ACBL definition is. The UI should have no determination on whether an action is an LA.

A poll seems unnecessary because, surely, it would confirm pass as a logical alternative. Partner's bidding box shenanigans imply he contemplated a take-out bid. That seems to imply weakness. Suppose, instead he fingered the redouble card, before, apparently, remembering that redouble was SOS? IMO that might suggest pass over 2♥.