ddrankin

I am assuming you are in the ACBL jurisdiction. From the ACBL alert chart, revised January 1, 2012: After the use of Stayman, continuations by opener where: • the lowest level of diamonds does not deny a four card major • the lowest level of either major guarantees something other than four cards in the major suit named Since a 4cM is not denied, I would rule it requires an alert. If it was not alerted, then the bidder must (call the director and) inform the opps before the opening lead, assuming they bidder is on the declaring side.

Assuming this means that declarer called a card to the next trick (as opposed to dumy playing a card on his own), then the previous trick must stand as played, since both sides have played to the next trick. So the andswer is yes, someone revoked, but it was declarer. Declarer may not have been surprised to lose the trick, but I would think he should be surprised that neither defender has a heart.

You can find the last discussion here: ACBLLC

From the alert chart, under "Alert": Natural 2D, 2H or 2S, if intermediate or better So if you have an agreement to open intermediate or better in 4th, it requires an alert. But nobody does it, and I have never been called about it in all my years of directing.

I have seen this happen more than a few times over the years. I have also seen the director use his discretionary powers to adjust the score after judging that dummy violated law 41(D), resulting in damage to the defenders.

The opponents have the right to know your agreements. You explained them. What more does he want, and what more can the director give him later rather than immediately?

I quite agree with the previous posts, particularly about the DP, but does no on else find this action by the director rather poor? If he agrees that ambiguous information has been provided, shouldn't he try to clear it up before he leaves the table? If he does that, there would be no grounds for adjustment at all (not that I see any anyway).

It is in the ACBL general conditions of contest, but in non-NABC events, fouling at duplication is now 1/4 board. http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/Conditions-of-Contest/General-AllEvents.pdf

Q.1 depends on whether or not 1♦ is strong (15+ HCP) and forcing. If so, then artificial and conventionals calls are allowed, including 1♥. (See point 7 under reponses & rebids on the GCC.) Otherwise, no.

My guess would be the procedures overrule the chart, and the chart is a simplification, if I can use that word when referring to the ACBL. But since the procedures don't specifcally address the bid, and the chart does specifically address it, and also does not conflict with the procedures, then it seems that 2NT does not require an alert unless natural and non-forcing. I'm not sure what the value of a natural and forcing, but not conventional, 2NT bid would be, though. Does anyone play that?

The alert chart does specifically state under the "No Alert" header: "Conventional and/or forcing 2NT responses", so I say no alert is required.

In the ACBL, 2nt in response to a weak 2-bid requires an alert only if it is natural and non-forcing. All conventional meanings are not alerted.

Here is the link: Codification The text is at the bottom of page 4, continuing to page 5.

If you cut and paste that URL into your browser, you should get the index for the ACBL Codification. Then scroll down to Chapter 12, section A and select it. Towards the end of that section is the text I quoted. Or you can go to ACBL.org and search for "codification conditions of contest", and you should get this page located.

If you mean the part I quoted, the codification section of the ACBL web site <http://www.acbl.org/about/codification.html> Chapter 12, section A has the text. I am still searching for the notice from management to which I referred.

From the ACBL Mid-Chart Convention defense database: "This database contains approved defenses to methods permitted under the ACBL Mid-Chart. When playing in an event governed by the ACBL Mid-Chart, you may refer, during the bidding and/or play, to any defense contained herein to a Mid-Chart method being used by your opponents (you may also refer to your own defensive method)." So yes, you may refer to your own defense.

Michael, I think it is just an extension of the text on the Mid-Chart that requires players that play Mid-Chart conventions to have copies of the approved defences in writing. Sort of "if I have to do it, so do you". But, as I said, I don't think it is required. At least, I can't find anything that says it is.

Poorly worded by me. What I meant is that, if you choose a defense, it must be done when the opponents pre-alert. You don't have to choose one, though. (I can't think there is any rule that requires you to have a defense to everything.) If you use your own defense, and it takes more than a few sentences to explain it, you are expected (not required as far as I know) to have it written down. (In the ACBL, when it is allowed, Multi can only be used in events in which you play at least 6 boards against each opponent that you meet, which means team games.)

At ACBL tournaments (not necessarily clubs), players are not allowed to select a defense to Multi after looking at their hands. The ACBL codification conditions of contest state that "At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents’ convention card and alter their defenses against the opponent’s conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. Defenses to methods permitted by the ACBL Mid-Chart and/or SuperChart are designated as “unusual methods” and may be referred to during the auction." I can't find the notice to TD's from management, but we were told that this meant the players must choose a defense when pre-alerted, if more than one was available, or state that they were using their own, and provide it to the opponents if requested.