LH2650

Following gnasher's link and reading down a little, one finds "responder should make a limit raise directly over the opening with 10–11 points and at least three-card support", so I presume that any other path to 3 of opener's major does not show that hand.

The board seems unplayable, with both sides at fault. I have visions of the auction continuing with 52 penalty cards face up on the table.

I have considerable experience with the New Generation boards, and a little with the Imperial boards. The New Generation boards require pasting the board information sticker on each board, while this is done by the Imperial manufacturer. Several of the hinges have broken on the NG boards. I tape them. The Imperial boards have only been used 1 or 2 times, so I can't comment on whether their hinges will last better. The Imperial boards have very stiff latches, which is a bother, and hard on your thumbs when you are doing many. I have had some trouble with the NG boards popping open, but nothing like reported above. Often this is due to not latching them properly. The NG manufacturer supplies a set of small numbers, which should be stuck to the side of each board, so that it is possible to determine that they are in order when stacked. This is a very good feature, and I intend to number the Imperial boards in this manner, but don't yet know where I will get the numbers. It is possible to label them with a Sharpie, but it will wear off eventually. I highly recommend installing vulnerability inserts, which are available from Baron Barclay. At this time I woul probably go with NG, but I would like to see if the Imperial latches loosen up. Solving the side-numbering problem would help.

ACBLscore can be downloaded, and the Tech Files read, by anyone with a computer.

Changes to the Tech Files in ACBLscore are approved by the ACBL Laws Commission, so I think that they can be considered regulations.

In the ACBL Alert Procedures you will find: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." Note that a mere suspicion does not meet this requirement, but there have been complaints that some ACBL directors interpret it that way.

The tournament sanction application will list the allowed conventions. Ask the Tournament Chairman for a copy of that.

The ACBL regulates conventions, and provides a definition: "A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named." Since the raise from 1M to 2M, as played by SAYC and most ACBL members does not meet this definition, it is not regulated.

1N is fine. I would pass. If I held two small spades and 17 HCP, I would double. I would think about it with Ax in spades.

[hv=pc=n&s=saj965ht83djt74c5&w=sqthj95da86cak983&n=s8hakq64d93cqt642&e=sk7432h72dkq52cj7&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h1s2hdp2s3hdppp]399|300[/hv] The first double was alerted and explained as a Support Double. The actual agreement was more like "responsive" or "cards". South claimed that the 3♥ bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 ♠ fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation. Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here? If so, do you feel that South's action reaches that standard? How would you adjust the score? The actual result was down one, and you can assume that 2 ♠ would have also been down 1.

In the standard ACBL approach (see Commonly Used Conventions on their website), the 3♥ rebid shows only a minimum weak two bid, and does not deny an outside feature. As an aside, a response to 2N that shows a feature also seems to qualify as a treatment, and therefore is not alertable. See the definition of "treatment" on the Alert Chart.

If you play that 3♥ shows a minimum weak two bid with no inference as to holdings in outside suits, I think that you are using a treatment rather than a convention. A treatment is alertable only if the ACBL specifically states that it is, and that is not the case here.

Past bulletins from NABCs are easily obtained from the ACBL website under NABCs/Past NABCs. Go to Chicago Bulletin #3 and find Mike Flader's column to see his position on this subject. On the facts presented, the short answer is that you should have done nothing.

You have asked a very specific question, and it has a specific answer. SAYC is a system defined by the ACBL. If a double after a 2- or 3-bid were negative, that would have to be marked on the ACBL SAYC convention card. It is not, and therefore these doubles are penalty. I am not arguing that this is the best treatment, but if your only agreement with partner is "SAYC", this is what you are playing. The standard ACBL convention card has a box to check if you are playing negative doubles after partner opens 1NT.

I think that a careful reading of the Minute and the Laws must lead to the conclusion that the two cases are the same in that dummy failed to quit a card specified by Declarer, but If the WBFLC was a little careless in the wording, then it does does not care who committed the irregularity, so neither do I. If you think that the claim affects how the Director should rule with respect to that irregularity, please explain why. The central point of this discussion must be whether a score adjustment might be made due to this type of irregularity, and the Minute does not consider that to be a possibility.

It appears that the WBF website is broken in the area of WBFLC minutes. However, the Philadelphia minutes can be obtained from the ACBL. This came up: 9. The committee considered the situation of a claim by declarer whereupon it is noticed that dummy at an earlier stage has failed to contribute a card to a trick and consequently has a card too many. It was agreed that no penalty is applied (Law 64B3). The Director determines which card to remove from dummy and then resolves the claim by deciding any doubtful point against the claimer. If the claim statement has been rendered invalid the Director should determine what would have happened if the board had been played out. This seems to be a more general case than that of the OP (or followup), one that could be applied whenever dummy has failed to play a card.

It suggests bidding on. I would have decided what I would do over each of partner's likely responses before I bid 4NT. His actual response was clearly unexpected, so my hesitation suggests that he do a recount.

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj954haqt9753dc]133|100[/hv] At the local club, no one managed to reach a grand slam with these cards, and no progress was made in the post mortem. Any suggestions?

[hv=pc=n&n=sa86hkdat983ck863&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1hp2dp2sp2np3sp4sp5np]133|200[/hv] Partner opens, and you are playing 2/1 Game Force. Are you happy with your bidding so far? What is your call? If you interpret partner's 5N as Grand Slam Force, 6♣ would be your weakest response, and 6♠ would show one of the top 3 honors with something extra.

This is incorrect. The statement you reference appears after the discussion of 2/1 bids, and therefore the statement that a minimum notrump rebid can be made on a minimum opening bid applies to them. Therefore I take issue with most of your points, starting with [4]. With an invitational hand, responder is presumably forced to rebid his suit, but that should result in at least a 5-2 fit nearly all the time. As for the original sequence 1♦ - 2♣ -2♦ - 3♦, I think that it is non-forcing. What rule does that violate? One problem with Standard American bidding, since its inception, is that responder occasionally has had to make a misdiscriptive rebid in order to force. The solution has been 2/1 GF.

If mjj29's approach is used, might it be possible to construct a case, with two more irregularities, where Declarer is able to prohibit North from leading every suit? The hand editor is really nice, but I haven't been able to convince it that a player took 3 calls at one turn.

I was not the director who handled this problem. The bidding: N E S W 1H - P - P - X 2C - 2S - P - P X - P - (2H, X, P) - P P Edit: Changed symbol for Double from D to X. On the third round of bidding, South made an insufficient bid of 2H, not accepted, changed the call to Double, which was cancelled, and finally substituted a Pass. Presumably the final contract is 2 Spades Doubled. When North first comes into the lead, there is a lead penalty. The lead penalty for the the withdrawn 2H bid is that Declarer may require the lead of a heart, or prohibit the lead of a heart as long as North holds the lead. The lead penalty for the withdrawn Double is that Declarer may prohibit the lead of any one suit, for as long as North holds the lead. What should the penalty be for the multiple infractions? Are there any other considerations I have missed that might lead to an adjusted score?

When a club applies for an ACBL sanction, it agrees to hold its games in strict accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and ACBL regulations. Psychic calls are governed by the Laws (the ACBL has an interpretation of this in the Club Director's Handbook), so the club can't do anything there. The ACBL has given clubs the right to regulate conventions, but opening 1 notrump with a singleton is not conventional, so the club is limited to the ACBL interpretation, which may be found in the Club Director's Handbook. The Unit could put a stop to this, but there is no guarantee that it will act on a complaint.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sajt9hq875dcaqt74&w=shk964da98742c853&e=skq874h2dkqjt3c62&s=s6532hajt3d65ckj9]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] P - P - 1♣ - 2♣ P - 3♥ - P - 3♠ P - 4♦ - P - P P No alerts or explanations were required or given. East thought his cuebid showed spades and another suit, while the agreement as understood by West and shown on the convention card was that it showed the majors. West interpreted 3 spades and 4 diamonds as cuebids. Note that West is a passed hand, which reduces the probability that he holds a long heart suit. This resulted in a near top, since many went down in 5 diamonds. I was not involved, but when asked later, I could find no reason to adjust. Can you? The director did.

The December, 2004 edition of the ACBL Bridge Bulletin has an article on Milton Work (page 43). It states that the 4321 point count was first proposed by Bryant McCampbell, in 1915.