LH2650

I checked the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, and everything under "Carding" concerned following to a lead. Therefore I don't believe that the carding regulations can be extended to leads.

Knowing that partner has the spade Jack is sufficient to make me want to be in game. Since the criterion is that there is a reasonable chance for game, with little help from partner, this hand must qualify. Blackshoe's TD perhaps should have done a little more research, because the example hand does not seem to qualify according to the Tech Files.

Playing 2/1 Game Force, you avoid bidding 1♠ because you are playing Flannery, and 2♦ because partner's openers are a little suspect. 1N is forcing and 2♠ is a strong ♦ raise. [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sq972hadkq643cj64]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥ - 1N 2♦ - 2♠ 3♥ - ?[/hv] As an aside, playing with a genuine expert, would you assume that 2♠ is a strong ♦ raise without prior discussion?

I must respect the vulnerability much more than this pair, because I would not consider pulling the double. However, assuming you adjust to a contract of 4♣, doubled or not, assigning a result seems to be quite a challenge. If you led the ♦ Queen, and it held, would you find the best continuation at the table? I wouldn't. If the defense goes wrong at trick 2, would you, as declarer, take the double dummy number of tricks? I doubt that I would.

This statement is self-contradictory. I can't prove that the Alert Chart, the Alert Procedures, or the Tech Files are "official". Perhaps someone can do better. However, a TD who wanted future assignments and promotions would probably think it well-advised to rule in the manner directed by Rick Beye and Mike Flader. Just as an example, let me invent my own convention. My 1C - 2C cuebid will show a strong notrump. It is non-forcing and not defined as "takeout". I don't think that I will get an argument that my treatment "conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning", and it is not exempted by the writeup in the Tech Files. Therefore I think it is alertable.

It is not alertable. As usual, go into ACBLscore and look at the Tech Files. ALERTS.063 (PAGE 7) ___________________ 4) CUEBIDS Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert. ... CUEBID COMPILATION This collection of direct cuebids and alert requirements was compiled by Rick Beye and Mike Flader in summer 2005. ... 1C - 2C = takeout, Alert only if for clubs

We need to know what responder intended. If it was intended as a transfer, then it can be changed to 2♥. If it was intended as an opening or a response to a minor, the transfer (which could be made on zero points) would not have the same or a more precise meaning than the intended action.

2♣ was not a psychic call because it was not a deliberate misrepresentation. In the EBU, if memory serves without consulting the OB, use of an illegal convention limits the offending side to A- or the table result, whichever is worse. Since the lead of the ♠A seems resonable, the NOS would presumably receive A+. Use of the illegal convention induced the lead, and the contract seems certain to fail without it, so in the ACBL I would adjust to 5♣ doubled, down 1.

I have a copy of this on my computer, but the link on the ACBL site seems to be broken (or they have made a change and failed to implement it properly), so I can't prove that it is currently official. The link to Appendix A of the ACBL Handbook also seems to be broken. From ACBL Codification, Chapter VI, Section F: "A club manager can bar or allow specific conventions and can bar certain conventions in novice games but allow them in open games. The types of events for which this applies are club masterpoint games, club championships, club charity events, ACBL-wide events, unit championships, unit charity events, district charity events, and the North American Pairs events." There are exceptions for events held across multiple clubs.

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sk962ha72daq52ct9&w=sqj74h64d964caj73&e=st8hkqt953dj87cq8&s=sa53hj8dkt3ck6542]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] ACBL East opens 2♥, South passes after the required 10 seconds, West thinks for about 30 seconds before passing, and North passes. When the dummy hits, North calls the director and objects to the (agreed) BIT. When asked, he states that he would have made a flawed takeout double without the BIT. Lebensohl applies, so a 3♣ response to the TO double would show values. How would you handle this? West is a very experienced player. When asked why he hesitated, he answers that he was considering a psychic 2 notrump. 2♥ went down 1. East said he might have competed to 3♥. Would you consider that in your ruling?

The system notes may be found at: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

You have a limit raise in hearts. In SAYC, if you have a limit raise, you make it. Your first bid should have been 3♥.

It is a matter of law. See 14B3.

I recognize that this in an EBU case, but it appears that Aguahombre (and I) play in the ACBL. From the ACBL Alert Procedures: FAILURE TO ALERT OR ANNOUNCE If partner fails to Alert or Announce, a player may not make any indication during the auction. Showing surprise or discomfort may awaken partner to the error and would be a violation of Law. In addition, a player may not make allowances for partner's error. The auction must continue as if partner had acted properly. My interpretation of this is that we must act as if we heard a proper alert.

Bluejak knows more about the ACBL rule than he lets on. The OP hand, and some hands that are legal in the EBU would not qualify, but some that the EBU would disallow are acceptable to the ACBL. Take ♠ AKQT98, ♥ JT9876 ♦x. This is legal in the ACBL, but as far as I can tell it is illegal in the EBU (rule =22?). Isn't this at least as likely as the EBU examples to catch enough in a dummy to make game when a 1-bid would be passed?

Resolutions of the ACBL Board of Directors have official standing. The points made in the link (and my other two points) are made, with a completely different set of words, in the ACBLscore Tech Files. From the wording, this is clearly unofficial by the BOD standard. Good luck in explaining that to an ACBL TD.

A current link to the ACBL website: http://www.acbl.org/learn/noTrumpwithaSingleton.html From other other writings, it is clear that: 1. If there is any 4441 hand which your system requires you to open 1N, your system is illegal. 2. If you have any methods for determining that partner has a singleton, your system is illegal.

I think that Law 41C is applicable. C. Opening Lead Faced Following this clarification period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins irrevocably,... So we cannot go back to the auction period. Presumably the auction and the result stand.

The correct quote is: Caesar - Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature. George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra, Act II This is best used when replying to our English brethren who are quoting some illegal regulation out of the Orange Book. It is a much better use of our time to have players in new partnerships agree on the fly as to the details of their system than it is to have them fill out a convention card.

You follow the dictates of Mike Flader in the Chicago Nationals bulletin #3 (P13).

Yes, Law 23. This is the only way to get to clubs below slam, I suppose.

http://www.acbl.org/about/lawsCommissionMinutes.html

Certainly there is a link. If East does not have ♣, as West can assume from the MI, then he probably thinks that the worst case for his 3 ♦ bid is that they will get to 3♠, one level higher than partner was willing to go, and there could be a tremendous upside if East happens to have a red suit. I consider the 3♦ bid to be bad bridge, but not wild and gambling. West, without the UI, presumably was planning to redouble if doubled, in order to get to East's suit. Therefore, the UI did not affect the probable result. Perhaps EW don't "deserve" a good result, but no one said that bridge was fair.

I find this to be a very interesting problem, and am surprised that it has not received more comment. If West had not bid 3♦, I assume North would bid 3♣, and as South, I think I would have to interpret that as some sort of strong ♠ raise. I would bid 3♥ as a game try, and pass partner's 3♠, or bid 4♠ over anything else (probably 3N). I expect that partner will have gotten the message by now, and pass, so that 4♠ seems to be a legitimately reachable contract. (I would rule down 1 if I assigned it.) No matter what we think of East's action, the MI damaged EW, and they deserve rectification. In practice, we don't really penalize players for East's type of indiscretion, so a stern lecture is appropriate. I assume that there will be polling, and that raises a question. The respondents will be told that 2♠ was a transfer to ♣, and they are likely to view this as more of an absolute truth than they would at the table. Does this bias the results?

Someone should tell him what was said.