kevperk

Another thing about the "Rule of 2,3,& 4". I always heard of it as being a check after the decision is made to preempt and a level is being contemplated. A hand less than an opening, with little defense, good offense, and a long suit, is usually considered a preempt of 2 with 6 cards, 3 with 7, etc. The "rule" is applied, and if off, one reconsiders opening higher, lower, or not at all.

I heard this called a Criss-Cross Mitchell. I am know of a "Scissors" Mitchell for 6,10,14 (4n+2) tables. It requires removing boards, and later returning then to different sets. I used it for a 6 1/2 table Mitchell that lost the 1/2 table just as round 2 was beginning to start. Ugly fix that I wouldn't plan on using initially.

The ACBL defines a cuebid as bidding a suit that the opponent has bid naturally or has shown at least 4 cards in.

Well, whether you or I consider QXX a feature, it seems the player does, from the discussion the OP had with the player, so we all should look at the auction continuing from 3S. With Flannery, that shows 4-5-2-2 with a maximum hand, so west would sign-off at 4H. The question is, would east pass this? I think so and would adjust to 4H. I leave it to others to determine the outcome of that contract.

Anyone else think that NS might deserve an adjustment, even if EW don't?

I know I heard this from Rick Beye when he was chief TD. I thought I saw it somewhere "in print", but I can't seem to find it. I agree that it should be made official if this is what is wanted.

I was told that this is the intention, so the easiest way to "get there" is by defining short 1♣ and 1♦ as natural, rather than scrap the whole definition of natural. Kevin

As a tournament director, I have been told and rule that a could be short 1♣ or 1♦ is not considered conventional in applying the General Chart regulation. Allowing any defense occurs only when the bid is truly artificial, not when it is ostensibly natural and only sometimes includes some catchall hands.

My problem with not adjusting the score is think of this happening at two different tables. Player one informs the director, who either finds out that the remark doesn't refer to the hand and informs player one, or reseats the players so that player one isn't in a position to find the successful underlead. Player two acts as in the OP's scenario. I don't think the laws are silent about this state of affairs. Simply penalizing player two doesn't seem fair to the opposing side at table two.

A 3♦ as a control showing bid is not alertable. The question becomes: does a bid showing either of 2 non alertable meanings need to be alerted?

My assertion of the alertability of doubles and redoubles corresponding with the artificiallity of the bid is not based on the alerting regulation defining it as such, but, in my mind, tied to the usual and expected meaning of the bids, as the regulations say, in light of historical usage. That is why takeout meanings, although artificial, are not alertable.

The ACBL alert regulation is admittedly not as clear-cut as "alert artificial bids and don't alert natural bids", but the exceptions to this are a much shorter list than people seem to believe. For doubles, the penalty and simple takeout meaning are generally the nonalertable meaning. For redoubles, I would think the penalty meaning would be nonalertable. I'm not sure about redouble for takeout. But any other meaning would seem to me to be artificial and clearly be alertable.

In the auction, if 2NT is Lebensohl, then 3NT should be bid with a stronger hand than 16-17, but if West was given the correct information, West would also know that South might have thought North had shown 8-9 pts. Surely West would pass, knowing that North-South might be in a bidding misunderstanding, and may easily be too high (West's inexperience notwithstanding). Kevin Perkins

What about the argument that each is only partly at fault, since counting by either side would catch the problem without the other counting? I think this is espoused by those who think the scores should add to 100% most of the time. Kevin

I don't think that West should ask for what was said to be repeated, and don't think that the laws support him being answered. He can find out at the appropriate time(after the auction if declaring side, or after play if defending side). Once the opponents have been given the answer, repeating it only passes UI. Kevin

--deleted-- Kevin Perkins

Law 27B4 refers to B3, which says "except as provided in B1(:) above" at the beginning. Does this have any bearing on the application of the law?