chrism

64B7 makes no reference to established revokes. Do we believe that it is intended to apply to cases where one side has corrected an unestablished revoke in accordance with Law 62 and the other side has an established revoke? That would be my literal reading, but I am not comfortable that it is the intent of the law.

I note that 64B7 simply says that there is no rectification "when both sides have revoked on the same board". It does not refer to established revokes, so a literal reading would deny rectification for an established revoke by one side if the other side had a corrected revoke during the hand. I doubt that this is the intent of the law. Do others believe that 64B7 should be interpreted as though it read "when both sides have established revokes on the same board", or applied literally?

You misquote 64B7 - it applies to both sides revoking on the same *board*, not *trick*, but from your correct ruling I take it that is just a typo. There is no rectification for the trick 12 revoke (64B6), but it is still a revoke so 64B7 still applies.

I dislike club committees, but certainly not because of any fear of an adverse assessment of my work. If I make an error I want the players to get the correct ruling, and I want to learn to do better in future. In any case, for the most part committees are making a deeper analysis of the bridge issues involved in a ruling, so that overturning the table ruling is by no means necessarily an indication that the director erred. My objections to committees are: - They delay the results at a time when players are anxious to get away (our games are held in the evening, ending around 11pm); - They impose on the time of those who generously agree to sit (though we do give a free play to committee members as partial recompense); - They cost the club money (3 free plays); - It can be hard to find a suitable committee. Occasionally I have organized a post-game committee via email, but the lack of easy back-and-forth interaction makes that unsatisfactory, and it is even more time-consuming, with results delayed interminably. We will continue to have committees (about once every 3 months, in practice), because the players deserve fair, independent arbitration, but I will continue to regret the need to hold them.

The director will have to make a number of determinations initially, as far as possible, What is the actual NS agreement over a strong 1♣? What is the agreement over a natural 1♣? Was South aware that 1♣ was strong when he called 2♣? Did North believe that South knew the opponents' methods? When did the opponents ask the meaning of 2♣, thereby establishing the failure to alert 1♣? What would 2♦ have meant over a Michaels 2♣ bid? For the sake of discussion, I am going to assume some answers; changing the answers may affect aspects of the ruling. So, I will hypothesise that NS play natural over a strong 1♣ NS play Michaels (5-5 majors, maybe with strength requirements) over a natural 1♣ South believed, at the moment he called 2♣, that 1♣ was natural North was unsure whether South knew what the opponents were playing West asked the meaning of 2♣ at his first turn to call 2♦ would have been natural over Michaels In particular, I am not considering the cases where South intentionally psyched his call over 1♣, or where he forgot his methods. We have the following irregularities, in chronological order: West: failure to alert, assuming that this is required by local regulations North (maybe): asking a question to which he already knows the answer, for partner's benefit Everyone: failing to call the director when attention is drawn to partner's failure to alert South (maybe): use of UI in the selecting a non-diamond opening lead South has the UI that partner thinks his call was natural. North has the UI that partner didn't ask the meaning of 1♣, unless it is clear that he had reason to think that South knew, in which case he would expect South not to ask. EW have MI about the meaning of 2♣. The root cause of the final outcome is the failure to alert. EW get little sympathy from that point on. North is exonerated on item 2; in order to give full disclosure he needs to be sure of the meaning of 1♣, and would be expected to clarify it as part of his answer to the opponents' question. If the director had been called for the failure to alert before North called 2♦, South could have been given the opportunity to withdraw his call and substitute another, with both calls AI to North, and the withdrawn call UI to EW. This might have given NS the opportunity to bid and make 4♠, though that is not particularly likely after the strong club opening. NS forewent that opportunity by not calling the director, and the probability is low enough not to rub salt in EW's wounds by assigning them -620 North is free to make any call he chooses over a natural 2♣ by South. He clearly did not treat the call as Michaels, since he failed to support spades, and whatever we may think of 2♦ as a bridge decision, it is legally untainted, as is the rest of the auction (South has no bid over 2N with or without UI). If 2♦ would have been natural whatever the meaning of 2♣, then South's UI does not suggest a non-diamond lead over a diamond lead. If 2♦ over Michaels meant "bid your better major" then the authorized information clearly suggests a major-suit lead, and South acted ethically in not leading a diamond. So South, too, is exonerated. Table result stands.

Scrupulously believe all his calls, alert the opponents of partner's tendencies, call the director if his bidding rises (sinks?) to the level of frivolous psyching, and renew your vow not to play with him again unless you want a session on the wild side.

I too have encountered a number of local players asserting that 1N=3C as Puppet is no longer alertable. These are often the same players who tell me that 1NT is no longer announceable if the range is 15-17, and that they no longer have to announce "could be short" for 1C openings that could be as short as 2 in a 4432 hand. The first and last of these misconceptions are apparently the result of a garbled reading of the latest ACBL regulations. The 15-17 NT myth seems to stem from some clubs who have instituted this as a local policy, and "educated" their players to treat it as gospel, thus breeding a swarm of evangelists.

From the ACBL general Conditions of Contest for KOs:

It suggests that East would have passed over any artificial 3D bid. The fact that he asked to change his bid as soon as he found that 3D was natural is a strong suggestion, though admittedly not a cast-iron guarantee, that he would have actually made that call given the correct information. I am aware of the "I want to change my call just because I think I can" syndrome, but have no reason to think it applies to this East.

The quote below is verbatim from the ACBLscore Tech files. The last two lines are clear: no alert is required for natural direct overcalls in either of opponents' two naturally-bid suits. As usual, I can find no single set of explicit regulations that confirms the accuracy of all the instances cited. Searching ACBL's online resources for a definitive, unambiguous set of regulations covering all conventional treatments and alertability requirements is like the Quest for El Dorado - long, covering a great deal of territory, and doomed.

East can substitute a new call for his final Pass if there was misinformation. There are 3 possibilities: 1. North forgot the agreement, and is telling his opponents so out of courtesy before the opening lead. 2. South forgot the agreement and mis-alerted 3. There was no agreement In cases 2 and 3 East is allowed a change of call. In case 1, which would need to be substantiated from the CCs or system notes, EW have no MI and East's Pass stands (his attempted change of call being UI wo West). If the change to double is allowed, N has UI from partner's alert but also the AI that partner has exactly (if they play Muiderberg as most do) five spades and that EW have doubled 4!S for penalty. I believe the AI is enough to let him pull to 5!D.

It is standard practice in the ACBL for directors to establish whether correct information would have changed your action, and to do so at the earliest opportunity, before your answer may be tainted by fuller knowledge of the hand. Such answers are used as part of the process of determining possible outcomes in the event that an eventual ruling on the hand is needed, though good directors will recognize that an answer made in such such circumstances is merely suggestive rather than definitive. Are you sure that you and your partner were actually being given the option to change your bid rather than just answering such a question? To do so in a Fast Pairs event is, of course, questionable, given the time constraints. And there is certainly a school of thought that argues persuasively that those questions are in any case unnecessary and inappropriate. In principle, I am a believer in the Don't Ask school; however, when working in ACBL tournaments, I follow common practice (by asking) in order to ensure as much consistency as possible in the way that calls are handled and rulings delivered.

No. They are natural and not highly unusual nor unexpected.

Your *failure* to peruse the written defense could well be UI to partner unless you are already known to be familiar with the defense. You should always look at the defense whether you think it matters or not.

The question was "is it GCC?", not "can I play it?". Whether or not it is GCC is independent of whether the original poster is from planet Earth.

Most conventions that go by the name of CRASH are legal in ACBL General Convention Chart events, since (almost) any methods are permitted over conventional calls and over opening bids of 2C and higher. Versions of CRASH over a natural 1NT opening are likely to be illegal, since at least one call in addition to double and 2C will show a 2-suiter with no known suit. All this assumes that by CRASH you refer to a set of three overcalls that show respectively 2-suiters of the same colour, same rank or same shape, such as (over a strong 1C), Double is S+C or H+D, 1D is S+H or C+D, 1NT is S+D or H+C - there are many variations on the theme.

The director needs to verify that the board was indeed misboarded, and if so, when. It sounds as if it was at the end of the round before last, but maybe it was a round or two earlier. Once that determination is made, then the "fouled board" formula approved by your sponsoring organization needs to be applied to each group of tables that played the same instance of the board (and maybe a PP considered for the pairs at the table where the foul occurred). The WBF and the ACBL both use the same formula;I don't now about other organizations. This has special cases for groups of 1, 2 or 3 tables and a general formula beyond that: If a single table played an instance of the board, as you believe, then the above posters are correct that each pair gets 60% of a top. If two tables, then the better score in each direction gets 65%, the worse 55% (or 60% each if tied). If three tables, the scores are 70%, 60% and 50% respectively. Beyond three tables, the matchpoints awarded to a group playing the same version of the board are (NxS)/n + (N-n)/2n where N=number of scores on the board (in all groups) S=matchpoint score within this group n=number of scores within this group This formula would be applied to all the tables that played the original version of the board prior to fouling.

Is dummy a "player" for the purposes of this regulation? I would presume so, but is that explicit anywhere?

If looking at a CC is considered participation in the play, or communicating anything about the play to declarer there is a violation of 43A1( c). For example, if dummy pointedly looks at a CC after an opponent's discard, that might well be a violation, since it could be seen as a suggestion to declarer that he should check the opponents' methods, and it easy to construct other similar examples - looking at the CC to cue declarer in to a bidding agreement that would help with inferential count, for example, or studying the lead agreements at trick 1. Otherwise, the relevant law is 40B2( c)(iii): "a player may consult his opponent's system card ... during the play but only at his own turn to call or play". Since dummy is not participating in the play, dummy never has a "turn to play", and so by a strict interpretation of that Law, may not consult the opponents' CC - UNLESS for the purposes of that law dummy is not deemed to be a "player" at all during the play of the hand, in which case the law does not apply at all. I could accept either interpretation; as a director, if called by the opponents, I would rule that dummy may not consult the CC because of the UI concerns, and because dummy really shouldn't be doing anything at all that might reasonably upset or distract the players. As a player, if dummy picked up my CC and started perusing it while obviously taking no interest in its relevance to the play, I would not consider calling the director to object.

aguahombre's observation on the Mid-Chart has me persuaded, and I recant my interpretation. It is a shame that the committee that decides on the wording in the charts was not better trained in writing clear and unambiguous English, but doubtless they were following the example of the authors of the Laws. And it all helps to keep directors employed ... ;)

From the ABL GCC, allowed responses and rebids: 10. ALL CALLS AFTER A NATURAL NOTRUMP opening bid or direct overcall, EXCEPT for natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) ... There as an ambiguity about the meaning of "range" in that context; I like my interpretation but a good lawyer could probably tear me to shreds :)

I agree that 11-15 is a 5-HCP range; the question is whether "11-13 OR 16-17" is a 5-point range (11,12,13,16,17) or a 7-point range (11 to 17 inclusive). My interpretation is the latter; defenses to a NT are likely to need to handle the weakest and strongest hands that could open 1NT, whether or not all balanced hands in between are also systemic 1NT openings. And just to clarify, this refers to a SPLIT range, not a variable range. The latter is a different range based on some combination of position and vulnerability; the former is a non-contiguous set(*) of ranges, where any balanced hand falling into any of the ranges will normally be opened 1NT. (*) In my experience, always a pair of ranges. A 3-way split like 8-10 or 13-15 or 18-19 is theoretically possible, but I can't imagine how to build a system around it, given the ACBL proscription of conventional responses and continuations.

Law 20: C. Review after Final Pass 1. After the final pass either defender has the right to ask if it is his opening lead (see Laws 47E and 41). 2. Declarer** or either defender may, at his first turn to play, require all previous calls to be restated*. (See Laws 41B and 41C). As in B the player may not ask for only a partial restatement or halt the review. D. Who May Review the Auction A request to have calls restated* shall be responded to only by an opponent. E. Correction of Error in Review All players, including dummy or a player required by law to pass, are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement* (see Law 12C1 when an uncorrected review causes damage). ----- 12C1 is the law empowering the director to award an adjusted score. In this instance he may well not do so, since the opening leader's partner shared the responsibility for the misexplanation.

The only time that I have suspended a player was at a club game when a player twice in a session played a (non-obvious) card spontaneously as dummy, on both occasions falsely asserted that declarer had called the card (immediately contradicted by declarer as well as by defenders, and he was not hard of hearing), and being told of the (lenient) quarter-board disciplinary penalty for the second offense, threw a tantrum, a few insults and his cards (how's that for zeugma:)?), so I told him to leave. The incident resulted in a month's suspension from the club and subsequently much improved behavior. On other occasions I have reached the point of threatening ejection without carrying it out; in a large tournament that usually takes the form "would you like to come with me to explain to the Chief Director why you should be allowed to continue in this event". In general, it is not so much the gravity of an offence as its persistence - refusal to quieten down, apologize, follow instructions or whatever is required to restore order - that would put a player in jeopardy.

I think the best reply is "I am supposed to bid my suit, or pass if it is clubs. Your question suggests that you may have misheard or misunderstood the explanation of my double" and let the opponents (and the director, if need be) take it from there.