ddrankin

More than a risk. See law 66D: 66D After the Conclusion of Play After play ceases, the played and unplayed cards may be inspected to settle a claim of a revoke, or of the number of tricks won or lost; but no player should handle cards other than his own. If the Director can no longer ascertain the facts after such a claim has been made, and only one side has mixed its cards, the Director shall rule in favor of the other side.

I don't give slpit scores in that case. I was merely pointing out, in response to a question by Ed, that it can be done. The circumstance I mentioned is the only time I use "NP", so I have no idea why someone would want to give a split score, with one being "NP". I have no idea why some people enter "NP" in most cases where I have seen it used.

It can. As to why or how it happens, well, I have never used No Play other than in a novice 3-table Howell, when I curtail the movement to 23 boards by not playing boards 24 and 25 in the last round. I was merely pointing out how it can be done.

If you enter "S" (for special) in the score field, ACBLScore will then allow a score entry for N/S, and a different score entry for E/W.

North.

The ACBL has, in its conditions of contest for Swiss events, the following: "CORRECTION AND APPEAL PERIODS PLAYER ERRORS: No increase in score needs be granted unless the TD's attention is called to the error prior to the announced starting time of the next match or 30 minutes after the completion of the match, whichever is earlier." Since this was a STaC, I think this should be enforced, which would give both teams 0 VP's for the match in question. The losing team is adjusted to 0, and the winning team is not adjusted.

I agree with adjusting to 4♥ but I can't see a line that the defense can give up the overtrick, other than cashing two club tricks early, which seems quite unlikely, if not totally improbable. Can someone enlighten me?

When I started directing in the ACBL many years ago, I was told that a 1 NT opening was natural if it had no singleton or void, and no more than one or two doubletons (as per the current alert chart). Opening 1 NT by agreement with any other distribution made it a conventional call, and that convention was not approved for use in ACBL-sanctioned events unless it was forcing. Conventions that are designed to uncover a singleton or void are not illegal, but will likely be taken as evidence that the pair has the agreement to open 1 NT with an unbalanced hand. There is no automatic penalty. It is simply treated as using a convention that is not approved for the event. Frequent openings on unbalanced hands may also be taken as evidence of having the agreement, depending on frequency and the actual hands opened. In upper level events such as the USBC trials, the players likely did not call the director, presumably because they agreed that opening 1 NT with a singleton was the best way to begin to describe the hand, and did not imply the agreement existed.

I used to say the same thing, until a player pointed out to me that the ACBL alert procedures make no mention of delayed announcements. So if he alerted the call, it was improper, but if it was announced, then probably not. Still UI though, but in this case, I agree that the result stands.

Assuming shuffle and deal was in effect, Law 6B has been violated. (Of course, so has Law 7B2.) Law 6D1 states that any illegally dealt board is a fouled board, which doesn't seem to help here. Law 6D3 says "Subject to Law 22A, there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when required by the Director for any reason compatible with the Laws (but see Law 86C). Neither 22A nor 86C apply here, so I always have the players redeal, since it seems compatible with the laws. I don't worry about 7B2, because no apparent damage has been incurred by a contestant. I would really like to know what the reference to a fouled board is supposed to mean, though.

No. By the laws. It is an election made by the ACBL and forms part of the law.

But they are not exempt. They are required by the laws not to vary their system. But we are talking about a pair that has not documented their system, which may be SAYC or close to it. If they had copied the SAYC onto a regular convention card, and presented them to the TD, he has no option but to allow it. I don't think they are changing systems, since they had no documentation of one before. Once they have documented their system, whatever it is, it would be petty not to allow it, unless the TD is prepared to prove it is not their system. Good luck with that.

I would think that when the TD hands you a SAYC card and tells you to play it, you have his permission to play it. I would not then bar a pair from deciding to play it for the rest of the session if that is what they choose to do.

Not in the ACBL, unless the director allows it (and I would not). One of the elections made by the ACBL is: "4. Law 40B2(a): Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card. a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.)" Once they choose to use the SAYC, they are stuck with it, IMO.

I will pose this as well to the ACBLLC members when I see them in Phoenix.