BudH

One other comment about having the hand records uploaded so that the opening lead entry will be checked against it to look for wrong declarer entry. If you think someone is guilty of "funny business", go check the Bridgemate log. It will be the "smoking gun" proving the player is cheating using the method I described earlier to find the location of a missing queen.

I don't think it is that strange to enable this option. The only scores that can be changed by the players is for the boards they are playing that round. Once the last board result is entered and verified, if you click "OK" to get to the "next round screen", then the Director has to make the change. We upload the hand records with the opening lead entry enabled because it has caused a significant drop in the number of score corrections after sessions. Often the wrong suit or declarer is entered and E/W don't check it carefully enough before hitting "Accept". Now there is a 75% chance an error message will appear saying the opening lead and declarer are inconsistent. Add the suspicious contracts feature and the number of score corrections after the game has become almost nil. If we ever thought any player was taking advantage as I described earlier, we would immediately remove the player correction in the current round feature.

Not really "pick it up". It stays on the table during the auction, later returned to declarer's hand, becomes part of dummy when faced, or becomes a major penalty card (because the card is an honor).

You are correct. We had a player at my local club mention this to me and how you could do it when opening leads are recorded and hand records are uploaded to the Bridgemates. You can do it only if (1) your opponents are not paying attention to the number of extra keystrokes and (2) the Bridgemates are set to allow players to self correct a result without Director input/presence. Example: It is the first board of the round and I am North in a 7S contract and dummy comes down with the trump queen the only possible loser. I enter into the Bridgemate 7SN, opening lead SQ, making 7 and confirm as if I was East. If no error message occurs, then I know East has the spade queen. I then correct this board, deleting that result, and proceed to play 7S finessing East for the SQ for 13 tricks.

In ACBLscore, you can fix the score(s) by using F11 --> EDMOV -- > Edit one cell, select round and table, the switched pair numbers (which likely will default to that), they change N to Y for partial round if it's only one board. Then Escape and Save.

Declarer has failed to make a proper verbal designation of the card to be played from dummy, which does not meet Law 46A but also is not among the myriad of Law 46B possibilities. Dummy must be allowed to either 1. Do nothing. 2. Ask declarer to explicitly specify suit and rank (or something of similar nature) to ensure the proper card is removed from dummy and placed in the played position. I think the safest thing dummy can do is to sit there and do nothing. Yes, this means a defender or declarer may be the first one to speak that dummy has not played a card yet. If I am the Director and defenders try to make the assertion dummy has called attention to an irregularity, I'm very unlikely to penalize this - or even consider it is to be considered drawing attention to an irregularity by doing or saying nothing. If dummy can tell me what declarer said and I agree there is ambiguity in the call of dummy's card (not meeting Law 46B), then I definitely will not penalize this.

Correct - I had to directly ask ACBL about this 20 years ago. It is not at all well publicized.

Note the definition of discard is important for defenders (in ACBL play) who use odd-even or Lavinthal on each defender’s first “discard”. If a defender leads a singleton to partner’s ace and trumps the return, is that his “first discard”?

Law 41D clearly states trumps are to be placed to dummy’s right. Therefore, “ruff it” and “trump it” both mean to play the lowest card of those cards in the column designated by law to be trumps in a trump contract (far left column in dummy from declarer’s perspective). Yes, we’d all appreciate players following Law 46A (state both suit and rank). But the entire reason for the lengthy Law 46B existing is the law makers realize almost no player consistently adheres to Law 46A. (My experience in play from club games to playing in national events is that at most 1% adhere to Law 46A nearly all the time. And no more than 10% avoid using phrases such as “”ruff it” or “trump it” in a trump contract.)

Offender’s partner will have information he’s not supposed to have if a takeout double is judged to be comparable (he knows offender likely has a balanced hand with exactly three clubs and there is a higher chance offender will hold only two diamonds). I’m not horribly against letting double be comparable, but we’d be starting to get to the “allow anything and let the UI law deal with the aftermath” that some players have touted ever since the new comparable call Law 23 was announced.

Yes, under “the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.” If the “psuedo-natural” 2C replacement call really is to be considered natural thereby preventing declarer from barring that suit on a lead penalty, 72C is definitely to be used to restore equity.

If you can substitute 2♣ barring partner and in essence bidding clubs naturally when systemically you could not AND you can get partner to lead clubs early and thereby gain, the laws need changing if 72C can’t prevent a good score for the offender.

1♣-1♣-"Director please" The insufficient bid by second seat was not a mechanical bidding box error and his LHO does not accept it. The Director takes offender away from the table to determine a replacement call - and which calls (if any) could be used and keep his partner in the auction (and avoid lead penalties later if on defense). Offender held a hand with 4=3=3=3 and about 13 HCPs. Director informed offender if he substituted (1) the cheapest call which showed clubs, or (2) a comparable call, his partner would not be required to pass for the rest of the auction and later lead penalties would be avoided. 2♣ showed both majors. Assume 3♣ is being played as natural and is the cheapest call which shows clubs. It is determined there is no comparable call and offender decides not to bid 3♣ natural with his 3-card club suit. Offender substitutes a pass, forcing his partner to pass for the rest of the auction and creating a lead penalty the first time his partner is on lead, if they become offenders. QUESTION 1 - if offender had a different type of hand with longer clubs, is offender allowed to bid 2♣, which would normally show the majors, but because he knows his partner must pass it is "safe" (legal?) to show his club suit in this manner? QUESTION 2 - If offender is allowed to bid 2♣ in Question 1, has offender now shown clubs so that later (if on defense) declarer could not bar a club lead the first time offender's partner gains the lead? Note that before 2007, in an auction such as 2NT-Pass-2♦, responder could substitute a 3♥ bid knowing partner is required to pass.

ACBL club game, 3 1/2 table Howell, start of Round 5 at Table 4. Pairs 2 and 1 begin to play incorrect Boards 9-12 instead of correct Boards 13-16, and is noticed after they were in the middle of the play period of Board 9. Director lets them complete Board 9, then gives them the correct Boards 13-16 to play with Boards 9-12 given to Table 3. Neither pair had played Board 9. (One played it against the phantom, the other was scheduled to play it the final round.) Pairs 1 and 2 are given 1/4 board penalties for starting the round with incorrect boards. They also scored average minus and opponents average plus for later schedu How does one in ACBLscore account for the extra result of Board 9, Pair 2 vs. 1 result? (The only way I can see to do it is manually calculate matchpoints and use the ADJ adjust command to make the total matchpoints correct.)

I don’t think for a second that the word “specifies” in the definition of “bid” is to be linked to how the word “specifies” is used in Law 27B1(a). The laws just don’t make logical sense otherwise. It seems so logical for the intended MEANING of the insufficient bid to be what matters (for example, Michaels cue bids showing majors or unusual 2NT or 4NT bids showing minors), to think the word “specifies” being in the definition of “bid” and also in Law 27B1(a) somehow talks you out of the logical meaning above seems illogical (or “Secretary Bird”-ish). Unfortunately, with the months of opportunities to catch this conflict in language, it’s a shame to have given anyone who thinks in legal-ese to think in those terms on the intended meaning. Strange that I say this, because most of my life I would have been one to identify that type of language discrepancy and would have been deemed the “legal eagle” or “Secretary Bird”.”

After an insufficient bid is not accepted, to prevent partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction, offender can either: Law 27B1(a): “make the cheapest bid which specifies the same denomination(s)”, OR Law 27B1(b): “make a comparable call” (Law 23). Law 27B1 is worded such that if a bid meets both criteria, you rule it under Law 27B1(a). What is the difference, if any, IN PRACTICE, of ruling under Law 27B1(a) instead of Law 27B1(b)?

Assuming East’s 1C bid showed 3-plus clubs, I’d allow a balancing 1NT (about 11-14 HCP) or 2NT (about 18-20 HCP) since it is extremely likely the hand will contain 3-plus clubs. West would not be required to pass. Note that West has very little (if any) extra information from the withdrawn 1C bid. If 2C was natural in the balance, that would also be comparable. A takeout double is NOT comparable. All (most) hands that would make takeout doubles are not part of the set of hands that would open 1C. In your second question (artificial 2C out of rotation), I don’t think any comparable call is available.

"lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call" Note the "(s)" at the end of "denomination". With your interpretation, the plural of denomination would never be used. Also, application of this law would not make logical sense if you are guessing at the possible meanings of the insufficient bid instead of determining which denomination or denominations the offender was attempting to show. Another example: (2♣)-2♣ insufficient. Are you going to simply guess at some possible meaning or meanings for the insufficient 2♣ bid? Is it intended as strong and artificial? A Precision 2♣ opening? A natural overcall of a 1-level opening suit bid? Intended to be a Michaels majors showing cuebid over a 1♣ opening? Or will you simply take offender away from the table and have him tell you himself, allowing you as Director to determine if there are any possible replacement calls having similar meaning or which will allow offender's partner to bid at his next turn?

Until we obtain some approved examples and interpretations, whether a difference in minimum (or maximum) strength difference of a(n) (1) queen, or (2) king, or (3) ace, or (4) something slightly more than an ace will be considered close enough to meet the "similar meaning" criteria in Law 23A1, we will be debating this topic.

Sorry, I intended my example to be for a case such as (3S)-2NT where offender thought he was bidding 2NT over 1S, not 2NT natural over a 2S bid. A good example of why you need to know the offender's thought process, so you know what denomination(s) he was trying to show. And yes, I might not ask to see offender's hand, but I will check the hand record if I rule the call will prevent offender's partner from being required to pass during the rest of the auction.

You sound like you are advocating letting offender officially make his replacement call, and only then tell him (and the other three players) if you are ruling it meets the criteria of 27B1a or 27B1b. Which I would never do. Offender needs to know if his intended replacement call will cause his partner to pass for the rest of the auction, so he can choose a different call to "place the contract". Which is why this conversation between Director and offender needs to occur away from the table. Example: Director: "What were you trying to show with the insufficient bid?" Offender: "I was intending to show both minors." Director: "Do you have any legal calls in this auction that would also show both minors?" Offender: "Yes, only one. 4NT would show both minors in this auction." Director: "Other than 4NT, is there any call comparable to your insufficient bid, i.e., has similar meaning or defines your hand as much as the insufficient bid?" Offender: "No." Director: "Then you may bid 4NT and the auction continues normally. If you choose any other call (which may not be Double), your partner will be required to pass for the rest of the auction."

Two suited bids such as Michaels showing majors or 2NT minors made insufficiently are extremely relevant. With your interpretation, why would it give a plural option of “denomination(s)”?

I’ve mentioned before it should have said “lowest sufficient call” and not “lowest sufficient bid”, where Pass is lowest, Double or Redouble is the next lowest, and the next bid is deemed the third lowest sufficient call. That would solve a lot of these problems. But that’s not what it says. In your example, I’d say the cheapest bid satisfying Law 27A is 3H. Fortunately, the stolen bid double is very likely comparable and can be used under that criteria.

"if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification...." Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following. " if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call, the auction proceeds without further rectification...." I never thought the principles used here were that difficult to understand. Perhaps I'm mistaken! Assume a different auction (3♠)-2NT where 2NT is not accepted by LHO. The Director learns the 2NT bid was intended to show both minors over a 1♠ opening bid. So what is the lowest sufficient bid specifying the same denominations? In this case it is 4NT, assuming it also shows the minors, and assuming 3NT is natural and not showing the minors. So the Director likely does need to know what the offender's thought process happened to be causing the insufficient bid. Also, this is probably a good reason why the Director should see offender's hand to check this reason is valid (although many think the Director should rarely consult a hand or hand record when at the table). Therefore, I think "specifies" means "shows". For the given 4♥-(Pass)-1NT, for me, the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) is 6NT (assuming 4NT and 5NT are not natural)

No, to avoid partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction (and to avoid any later lead penalties if becoming a defender later), the offender must either 1. make the cheapest bid which specifies the same denomination(s). (Note it doesn't say "call", so presumably a negative double cannot be used to meet this criteria) OR 2. make a comparable call. If the substituted call is not comparable, but meets the criteria #1, offender's partner is not barred and no lead penalties apply. Yes, it will often be the case that the substituted call is a bid which meets both criteria. But it is possible for only criteria #1 to be satisfied.