LH2650

The premise in the original problem statement is flawed. From The Bridge World Editorial of November, 2004: "Any law or implementation that encourages taking notice of UI from partner is irredeemably horrible." The Editorial goes on to detail the correct interpretation of this area of law, and addresses a common but incorrect interpretation suggested in the original post. My lawful and ethical partner must do exactly what he would have done without my hesitation. Anything else would be illegal. Therefore, I have no UI from his action after my hesitation.

Rage against the machine if you must, but if you open 1N with a singleton, a competent ACBL director will investigate, and if he determines that you have an agreement allowing that, he will consider an adjusted score. The ACBL tells him to do so. The legal and regulatory principles appear to be the same for a 3N opening.

No, this is a convention and is not GCC legal. In the GCC, under "Definitions", may be found: "A notrump opening or overcall is natural if not unbalanced (generally, no singleton or void and only one or two doubletons)." The examples shown make it clear that this definition is not being met. Anyone who thinks that the ACBL doesn't regulate to this definition should research opening 1N with a singleton.

At the point that North must call over 2 diamonds, he has an excellent hand in an unusual auction. Both a conservative 3 clubs and an aggressive 3 diamonds seem to be logical alternatives. However, one is clearly suggested by the UI, so I would disallow that, setting the contract at 3 clubs by North. The Laws are carefully written so that the Director does not have to address issues of unethical behavior in situations like this in order to make a ruling, and I would not. Once the contract is imposed, the subsequent bidding and play that actually occurred at the table is relevant only if the defenders did something irrational, and I don't see that. More information on the club spots may be necessary in order to determine whether 3 clubs makes.

If I used this convention, I would be willing to play in either ♠ or ♥. You may not like the wording in the Laws, but the intended meaning is clear. Likewise, a bid of 2M, showing (a willingness to play in) a known 5 card major or an unknown 4 card minor, conveys something other than just a desire to play in the major, so it is a convention. And it is a convention not allowed by the GCC. If you just sit back and try to understand the simple point that the Laws Commission was trying to make, rather than lawyering it to death, the answer is clear. Mike Flader is an Associate National Tournament Director. There are a few National Tournament Directors above him.

If you go to http://www.acbl.org/play/toolsSupplies.html you will find, under "Convention Cards", the SAYC card and a booklet describing the system. This will tell you that #3 is invitational and that your final example is forcing. There is some inference that #1 is forcing, and I would certainly vote for #2 being forcing, also.

I was kibitzing a BBO ACBL tournament recently, and a player started arguing with the director about presumed failures to alert. (The opponents simply didn't know what they were doing.) After refusing two requests to bid, he was replaced. That seems simple and effective.

While reading djneill's Polish Club translation (as here, 2D requires 5 but 2C can be bid on 3), I decided that I would alert the 2C bid in the ACBL (highly unusual shape). Obviously, another interpretation is possible, and this will be resolved only when the SO issues a clarification. The point is not that you are bidding a 3 card suit, which is legal, but that you may be hiding, by agreement, a 4 card suit that it is "standard" to bid As to an adjustment, I don't think that a spade lead warrants one, but a diamond lead would.

Stay with your interpretation. It is fully supported by Law, primarily 73D1. Your legal obligation is to take no notice of the hesitation. See The Bridge World November 2004 editorial for a thorough discussion of this matter.

The White Book regulations concerning the use of an illegal convention edict score adjustments, and these can be made only under Law 12. The regulations do not conform to Law 12, so score adjustments made by using them can be illegal.

A straightforward case, yet we all differ on the ruling. Mine is Average Plus to both sides. Let me digress to the Las Vegas Regional of a few years ago. My teammates opened 1 club (Precision). This was greeted with a 1 spade overcall, an Alert, and an explanation that it could be anything - they always bid 1 spade over a forcing club! The TD instructed that play should continue while he went in search of advice. The eventual ruling was that the convention, being purely destructive, was illegal, but that the score stood and there was no penalty. This had me puzzled for some time, but it is actually very simple and straightforward. Law 12 requires damage in order for there to be a score adjustment (so the White Book process is illegal), and none had occurred. A normal contract and result had been achieved. So, the TD in the Multi case made an error by not instructing that play should continue, and Law 82C requires him to correct that by giving Average Plus to both sides.

Absolutely not. It is far from clear that they were damaged by this, and whether they could have reached 4 spades is critical to the discussion. Their own comments and actions lead to the conclusion that they had no chance to get there, given a proper explanation. Their only possible claim of damage is that East should have raised hearts (and I don't support that), giving NS a chance to double and collect +500. This could only happen if East is not entitled to the information in the alerts and explanations, which is a murky area of law. The TD got it right, except for the procedural penalty. The irregularities actually helped NS, at least giving them a chance to bid game. While procedural penalties are exceedingly rare, blatant use of UI has been known to attract one in ACBL national competition (Reno Case 10). One seems appropriate here.

Online play should be consdered equivalent to using screens in this case. When using screens in the ACBL, there are no delayed alerts. See acbl.org - Site Index - Tournaments - Conditions of Contest - Appendix G.

The ACBL convention card and the ACBL Alert Chart both show that bypassing 1 diamond to bid a major is not alertable. Also, the ACBL Alert Chart might cause some pain for the director who made awm's ruling.

You might look at 12A1.

Once more for luis: Law 40E gives the ACBL the authority to require a convention card. The ACBL specifies a convention card, and requires that it be filled out. This means that agreements required by the card must actually be made. There is a box on the card that covers doubles of preempts. If you have not made an agreement here, you are in violation of Law 40E. If you violate a Law, and it damages your opponents, they are entitled to a score adjustment. In the original post it was asserted that at least one member of the partnership was playing the first double as penalty, and my remarks were directed at this specific case. Luis attempts to apply them to completely unrelated situations. Everyone I have ever played with would consider this a takeout double, and we would have that agreement even without a convention card. Of course, I hope that no partner of mine would make that double, no matter what we were playing!

The ACBL requires filled-out convention cards under Law 40E. If a pair does not have such a card, and does not have the required agreements, their opponents cannot successfully employ their counter agreements, to which they are entitled. Therefore, they are damaged.

In the ACBL, a penalty double at this level is alertable, and a failure to have an agreement here in itself constitutes damage, so check the NS convention card. If it indicates that the double is penalty, or is not filled out, adjust the score. However, figuring out what the score(s) should be seems really tough. The rules seem to be completely different (or non-existent) in the WBF.

From ACBL Codification (or the Club Director's Handbook). "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card." The Sponsoring Organization has the authority to require that both players use the same system because it has the right to regulate the use of conventions. This really means that you both must play the same conventions. Style, such as opening 1 Notrump with a 5 card major, or opening a 4 card major in third position, cannot be regulated. Psyching is a matter of style. The ACBL Club Director's Handbook has considerable discussion of the regulation of psyching, and can be downloaded from the ACBL website. Here is a piece: "Are psychs allowed?" "Clearly Law 40 permits psychs. Psychic bidding is a part of the game...Excessive psyching leads to implied and concealed partnership understandings and such understandings are serious offenses — they erode the very basics on which the game of bridge are built. Pairs that regularly use psychs soon learn the type of psychic calls their partner makes and are prepared for them. The opponents do not have this same information, although the rules of the game call for complete disclosure of bidding methods." Note that, in determining whether you are psyching excessively, the cumulative number of psyches, as well as the rate, is important. You probably can't be banned from psyching, but the director can require your psyches to be reported, and he can, on minimal evidence, determine that your good result was obtained due to an undisclosed partnership agreement. At that point, you can only lose.

The current edition of the the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge states that virtually all experts play this as forcing. This is a stronger statement than appeared in previous editions. Being an ACBL publication, it would represent only North American practice.

A slow alert doesn't come anywhere near the threshold for a procedural penalty. I recently asked a director (who works full time, including all ACBL Nationals) how many procedural penalties he had assessed in the last year. He thought he had been involved in two (not including Zero Tolerance and cell phones ringing). The one he could remember involved an egregious use of unauthorized information.

Pass by who? If South, I don't believe it. South must make a plausible argument that he would have done something different with the proper information. I would accept the claim that a double is reasonable, rather than 2 Notrump, and that this might avoid being in 3N with no stopper in one major. However, if South requests an adjustment without stating exactly how the auction would have been different and more successful, I would deny it.

This has nothing to do with the ACBL. The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge are identical to the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge in this area. Your complaint is with BBO, which does not allow the Director the latitude he is given by the Laws. My suggestion was that those running BBO tournaments live within the Laws and the constraints of BBO, rather than taking illegal actions in the name of equity.

It is illegal to impose a result on an unfinished board. Laws 12C2 and 12C3 require a table result, which you don't have. You must use Law 12C1 (A, A+, A-) and procedural penalties. Since the management has apparently not implemented software that allows procedural penalties, you can't use them. I believe that an ACBL Club Manager has the right to decide that no procedural penalties will be applied in his club, so the ACBL games are legal. You should do the same.

From the ACBL SAYC Booklet, "Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid." Three spades would be a limit raise. A cuebid, as in 1S - (2C) - 3C is a game force. I don't know if anyone actually plays this way, but that is the system!