TylerE

There's a very good reason why this is off when playing. It's an aid to memory, and thus not in accordance with the laws.

Agreed Justin. My first reaction here was X and ♦, wtp?

4NT looks awfully quantitative to me.

Abstain. I would have made some sort of GF ♥ raise on the previous round.

Yes. that was EXACTLY what the head ACBL director told me to. I am really not happy about this, and will not play in ACBL games until something is done to turn those masterpoint treadmills into something at least resembling bridge.

'ACBL' was the one who finally handled the call.

Original post edited.

1NT 15-17 p-p-p in you, White v Red at MP ♠AJ2 ♥T94 ♦AT97 ♣AJ6 EDIT: Sorry, AT97 of ♦, not KT97

While playing in the 6PM Speedball tonight, a very unfortunate set of events transpired. On the first board of the 3rd round, partner opened 1NT (15-17), RHO bid 2♦ (no alert), and I'm looking at a weak 5-2-1-5 hand. Decent spots, very high ODR. After thinking for 5 or 10 seconds, I bid 2♥ (Xfer to ♠). After I bid 2♦ was alerted as 'majors'. So I call the director. Simple misinformation ruling, right? After multiple TD calls (1 each by 3 of the 4 players of the table), it took me PMing the ACBL yellow to FINALLY get a director at the table. The initial call had been made with 13 minutes remaining. A director finally showed up at the 6 minute mark, at which point the director started complaining at US for not 'playing on' even went so far as to say '100%' fault to NS (our direction). How exactly is one supposed to 'play on' after such an event? The final result was adjusted to Ave== on all 3 boards. This does not seem right to me. While I can understand it somewhat on the 2nd and 3rd boards, it seems a bit unjust on the board we actually (attempted) to play. As non-offening side, aren't we entitled to some sort of positive adjustment?

I think OP means something to streamline the "fine 4 opps" part.

A crucial point here is whether or not the X is so wild and gambling to deny redress. My gut feeling is that it is.

Relay and bid 3NT. Am I missing something here? Yes it's then, but hey? 2nd Choice: Pass and hope partner isn't joking.

While I might bid 2NT (I really think 2M should show 4, but I guess I'm old fashioned like that.) If I was going to bid a major, it would be ♥. 2♠ looks to much like an actual preference.

I'm not even sure that at BI level I'd trust 2♦. I'd expect the following agreements: 2M = Don't want to be in game opposite a limit raise. Anything Else = At least game interest. Would assume new suits are game trys, but wouldn't bet money on it.

symbol.ttf

Obvious penalty. Easy pass. I expect partner to be beating this out of his hand, quite possibly taking 4, 5, maybe even 6 tricks off the top. QT of trump is a useful holding. I'm not crazy about 2♥, but I don't hate it either.

http://www.tylere.net/tyler-screen.pdf There's a version that's a bit more optimized for online viewing

I'm using the memoir class. Font is 12pt. This is the 'book' formatted version, so the pages are 6" x 9", not 8.5" x 11". For best viewing set your PDF reader to "two up continuous", with the first page on the right.

New version uploaded, http://www.tylere.net/tyler-precision.pdf

I give up. You clearly don't get it.

While those laws may be applicable, they would be in the form of a procedural penalty, not a score adjustment.

Hardly. In any case, where do you draw the line? If someone opens 4♠ in 1st on ♠xxxxxxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ xx and the opps miss their cold slam, is that a 'sabotage' bid?

Because the law has no concept of 'sabotage bids'. A player may make any legal call at his turn to bid. If player opens 7NT, and then redoubles, no law violation has occured, thus there is no grounds to make an adjustment.

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the laws give you no right to adjust in this situation, awarding the same score to both sides is hardly fair. Now, again ignoring for the moment that a table result was actually attained, to pretend that the board never happened isn't fair to EITHER side, or the field in general.

I'm not sure I'd consider anyone who knowingly and willfully directs outside the laws as being capable of directing a serious tournament. Through your posts on these forums, it is clear you have some quite non-mainstream views as it comes to directing. As to knowing the laws, while I'll admit the law book can be pretty intimidating it isn't THAT bad, it's freely available online, and should be required reading for any serious player. Not saying a player should be able to quote chapter and verse, but familiarity is very helpful at high level play.