LH2650

Partner's BIT is still a BIT. I don't like the term "restricted" - you should always do what you think you would have done without partner's hesitation. However, by failing to wait the required 10 seconds, your opponent has committed an irregularity by violating a regulation authorized under Law 80. If the Director determines that your side was damaged (by denying partner time to think), he has the authority to assign an adjusted score under Law 12.

I do. Law 68D. I have no sympathy for players who take actions after the need to summon the Director has been expressed. The claimant clearly wants to reconsider his statement, and because he has expressed a need for the Director, he gets it. I will accept his revised statement as a valid claim.

Why? 3♥ is cold, and he didn't get doubled. 3♥ seems fairly clear, so no adjustment.

I would allow declarer to complete his claim statement, and score the board accordingly.

If you have received a formal complaint within thirty days of the incident, you may proceed with a disciplinary hearing. You must judge whether that is appropriate. The complainants will be required to attend the hearing, either in person or by telephone, so you had best make sure that they are willing. If you wish to proceed, go to the ACBL website, locate the ACBL Handbook, and pay particular attention to Appendices B and D. If a formal hearing seems inappropriate, I suppose that I would write the player a letter, stating the nature of the complaints, and informing him that formal complaints of this type will result in a disciplinary hearing and possible suspension from future tournament, Unit, or District activities.

While we are at it, let's not forget Law 66 C - Quitted Tricks Thereafter, until play ceases, the cards of quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction...)

For better or worse, with the transition to BBO, there is a new feature available - polling! I wanted to see this on Bridgetalk, but never suggested it. Perhaps we should start using it.

No. Clubs can regulate conventions. ACBL Handbook, Chapter 4. Isn't that what he said?! No. Bluejak is contending that a club can ban a low-range weak two-bid. That is a natural call, not a convention, and therefore cannot be regulated by clubs.

This should not have happened. Either you were called late to the table (in which case some strong words should be used) or the offender did not understand your explanation of his options.

No. Clubs can regulate conventions. ACBL Handbook, Chapter 4.

I discussed it with a regular partner, and we settled on 1♣ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♥- 5♥ - 5N - 6N

Mel Colchamiro has a discussion of constructive raises in his June and July columns in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin.

My view is that North cannot change his call. This is clearer in the 1997 Laws, where the relevant section starts with "Until LHO calls…", (and East had done so). Assuming that this still applies, (and if not, when does his period of allowed change end?), an action by North would be a call out of rotation, to be dealt with by laws 30 through 32. However, if the Director had given him proper instructions, he could not act, because he would run afoul of Law 72B1 - A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification that he is willing to accept. In fact, I am far from sure that he can change is call even if East has not passed. Law 25B1 does not explicitly give him that right - in fact it calls him an "offender" if he does so. I presume that means that he has committed an irregularity, and if intentional, he is afoul of Law 72B1 again.

Purposeful Correction is gone from Law 25 in the new version. She is stuck with the 2♦ bid. As for the rest of it, the complete auction and play would be necessary.

Law 68B2 - ...if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. The Director is correct in requiring play to continue, but should probably award an adjusted score, since unauthorized information may have affected the play.

What appears to be the standard ruling (which I have heard of more than once at Regionals), when a Director is first called some tricks after an exposed card is first put on the table is: "A penalty card is one so designated by the Director. I have made no such designation. Pick up that card and continue play."

"After one club — (one of a major) — double — (pass) — ?, opener’s two-diamond rebid does not show extra values." - Bridge World Standard In undiscussed areas, I tend to assume BWS. That said, I have discussed this with only one partner, and we play it as showing extra values. However, we also play that 1N does not suggest a ♥ stopper.

For the ACBL, the regulations may be found in ACBL Codification, Chapter 12A, pages 4 and 5: 1. 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 their basic system). 2. 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.

This keeps popping up, so I'll repeat the standard answer. In the old Laws, the sponsoring organization was authorized to regulate conventions, and the Laws contained a definition. The Standard American 1♥ opening bid did not meet the definition, so there was no authority to regulate it. The new Laws allow the Regulating Authority to prohibit anything, as a "special partnership understanding", but that requires action, and the ACBL has not yet disallowed the Standard American 1♥ opening bid.

If you read the ACBL Mid-Chart, you will find: This chart (or any part) may apply to any sectionally or regionally rated event or tournament at sponsor’s option provided that this has been included in tournament advertising. (The requirement for advertising does not extend to use in Flt. A or high brackets of KOs.) If you read the fine print at the bottom of the flyer for the D20 Reno Regional, you will find that this option has been selected for some events. So I don't see how you are in violation of ACBL policy.

And answered before. In the old Law 40, no authority was given to regulate natural calls, only conventions. This is slightly modified in the new Law 40, and the ACBL probably needs to rewrite its Convention Charts to conform to the new Laws, but nothing has really changed.

The ACBL Alert Procedures contain no provision allowing your opponents to specify that you should not alert. I suppose that they can ask, but you cannot legally comply.

Why? The double properly represented East's hand. The EW misunderstanding is their problem, as is the penalty double without tricks in the face of a strong opposing auction.

I think that if you accept your argument you will never find a case where you fail to adjust after misinformation, and a bad result.

No. EW would have obtained a good score had they acted rationally based on the information available to them. They were not damaged by the misinformation, but by their own bad bridge. There is no legal basis for adjusting the NS score if EW were not damaged by NS actions.