jeffford76

I believe there is no way to get an official ACBL answer on whether a convention is legal under a particular chart.

Pulling 3NT to 4m is forcing. If you don't want to play at least 4M or 5m, leave it in 3NT. (I'm assuming that is what the first question is asking.)

The board of directors passed changes in 2009: http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/0902-exhibits/2009_2_Washington_board_minutes.pdf

I have never before seen it suggested that this does not require an alert. Conventional doubles other than takeout doubles typically require an alert. What part of the alert procedures would suggest this is an exception?

It was approximately AK Kxxx x AKxxxx. Definitely not a diamond fit.

I don't have any way to do this. There wasn't a director call at the time. I was one of the opponents, and I somewhat instinctively thought "oh good he didn't just repeat his diamonds" in a UI position, and didn't really work out that he might have had other LA's that were worse for his side. My partner did work out that they might have ended up in slam with a different call, but thought I would have called the director if the opponent had done something wrong, so also didn't call. I think that part won't happen again. :)

Really? What would you think it would be? I would think the strong hand would want to be able to bid all the other suits naturally. I certainly wouldn't expect you'd need AKxxx to raise. To be clear, there were lower bids available that were forcing by the 3♣ bidder, so they have already emphasized having a good suit.

Without the alert can't South also have hands that don't have so many clubs? After all, South thinks they're raising a natural club bid. They could easily have Axx or xxxx.

It's pretty much guaranteed if I say this that I am not expecting to win the trick and that dummy has a singleton. We all have our quirks.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the full system, or ability to ask about this. I believe 4NT would be RKC for clubs, but not sure which way around 3014/1430.

4♣ is natural and forcing. It isn't more defined than that except by bridge logic (obviously a hand that is willing to bypass 3NT).

[hv=pc=n&n=s5h4dak98752c9842&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1c(strong)1d(majors%20or%20minors)3c(game%20forcing%20transfer)p4cp]133|200[/hv] [Edit: IMPs, 7 board Swiss matches, Sectional] The 3♣ transfer is not alerted. Now what would you do? (No special minor suit ace asking bids.) At the table this hand bid 5♣, and they played there making 5 exactly opposite partner's AKxxxx in clubs, and off one ace. ♣QJx was onside, but not finessed against. The opponents suggest that this hand should be making a slam try, and that the hands may get too high, and that 5♣ while better than reflexively bidding 4♦ is actually taking advantage of the UI. Your ruling?

Yup.

Thanks - I thought pass was normal but wanted to confirm. It scored pretty terribly opposite partner's ♠AQ932 ♥K108 ♦void ♣AKQ95.

OK, but I don't think anyone was really arguing that. If you thought I was I didn't express myself well. Unfortunately the ACBL doesn't actually make official interpretations of things like this. The best you can do is to look at custom and practice, and if you're lucky to ask the opinions of respected directors. I'm confident that rescheduling the movement to include sitouts (which is more easily entered into the scoring program with NP's) is what the official interpretation would be if we had one. Obviously others may disagree. What I think is relevant to ACBL directors is the custom and practice and high-level director opinions within the ACBL. To me some of the comments in this thread, particularly those of bluejak, have rung of "It doesn't matter what the ACBL says, this is the one true way for directors".

I thought that was the point of this thread. The ACBL interpretation is that 8A1 allows the director to change the movement midstream. Maybe you don't think it's ambiguous, but I think that I'll use the interpretation I'm given.

[hv=pc=n&n=skj74hj2dkqt72cjt&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2ddp]133|200[/hv] And if you don't leave it in, what's your call?

I understand you only reply to the posts you feel like, but it's hard to take seriously something that ignores the post stating the legal basis for the director changing the movement upon an illness, and instead just declaring it all illegal. And I think it laughable the idea that the correct behavior for ACBL directors is determined by your reading of the lawbook, not by the advice given by ACBL HQ.

Hopefully they won't, anyway.

I am happy they have changed the actual rule to be the same as what was the enforced rule before.

I queried another high level ACBL director and here are some excerpts from his response:

You really don't understand why? In a 7-table Mitchell, who do you think is going to score better, a pair that plays 28 boards normally, or a pair that plays 24 boards normally and also gets 4 60% boards (which are factored up if their other boards were over 60%)? Many people don't think this is a fair comparison.

As you know, it is impossible for a club director to get official advice in the ACBL. And this is where I disagree. If that's what the head office is telling people to do, that is what you should do, even if you think it is the "wrong answer". It is obvious to me that in the ACBL the expectation is that NP be used, whether it is legal or not.

I'm not sure which person you're saying hasn't read the law book correctly. If you mean me, I certainly understand that "not played" is not mentioned there, and I would read the laws to say that average plus is correct. If you mean the person who gave the advice, it is a reasonably high level tournament director and I think it's insulting to him to imply that he has not read the laws carefully. Very occasionally the advice I get from the top doesn't strictly match the law, or only matches a reading of it I wouldn't consider correct. I still think if I want to direct ACBL games I'm supposed to follow the advice, not say that I know better.

Probably not - if she didn't see the XX, then she was picking up her cards because the auction was over, not because she was trying to pass.