Keeper1

Yes. The regulation does say "expected" lower limit and, as you say, she can't get that from looking at the hand.

From the alert chart, you should alert: Natural NT overcalls with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or upper limit of more than 19 HCP Conventional NT overcalls except those specifically not requiring an Alert Natural Jumps to 2NT, except in balancing seat So if the overcall had a lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP, the Director was correct.

"What I do see is a lot more recommendations for actual penalties (separate from adjustments) on BBF than I would ever see in real life. " FWIW I understand the director did impose a quarter-board penalty for NS but did not adjust for EW. S is by no means inexperienced by any standard, but I don't know if he had been specifically warned about this. Comments?

Thanks. It's good when GIB, unlike real-life partners, admits that it was wrong and promises to change in future :)

I could have lived with either of those defined meanings...but surely without a diamond stop the GIB N should bid 3S or some number of clubs, not 3NT (even if the latter is only 2 down, not six)...and yes lol for jamegumb's contribution :)

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqj97ha9d3ckq8753&w=s8hk8763dak9642ct&e=s5432hqt5dqjt5c64&s=sakt6hj42d87caj92]399|300|Scoring: MP 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 3♦ P P P! 3♦ was not a success - down 6 surely 3♦ should be forcing, if nothing else?....[/hv] Doesn't look as if I was the only one.

You think that was fairly ridiculous: how about this? You hold: J652 T6 T82 QT63 The auction (mps, both vul) was: 1H (x) 3H p 4H (x) p 4S x p p Before making my 4S call, I queried the 3H bid and, after some delay, received the explanation that it was "10+ points with H support" 4SX was down 2, while 4H(x) would have made. A few minutes later we were notified that the (good) score had been adjusted to average minus. No TD call was made at the table, and the ruling made was with no consultation or questioning of us. When I queried the reason for the adjustment, I was informed that my 4S bid was a (forbidden) "psych" since I had "only 3 hcp." On further questioning I was told I should have alerted any "artificial or unnatural bids." When I responded that my call was unequivocally natural (and indeed "to play"), I was told I should "alert any unusual bids." I posted the hand neutrally at the time on the BBO Forums, with most responders favoring the supposed "psych" 4S call. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=39675 That wasn't the hand that stopped me playing free tournaments however. We carried on immediately to another tourney. On the first board pd opened an aggressive weak 2. A few minutes later we were again informed of an adjustment because although psychs were permitted thay had to be notified to the director. Pd didn't think he had psyched...but the director turned out to be one of our opponents on the hand above! This was one of the larger free tourneys, and the last I played....robots don't accuse you of psyching, however you bid.

I guess all you can do is file a recorder form...did the directors encourage you to do so, or indiate they would do so themselves?

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sha9876dak1087c863]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1C (4s) ? Your turn. RHO is world class, if it matters

I can confirm this is ACBL-land (OP showed me the hand last week). Do you give the same result for both sides?

[hv=d=w&v=b&s=sj652ht6dt82cqt63]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥ x 3♥ P 4♥ x P ?[/hv] Before you call, you ask and find out that 3H shows "Heart support, 10+ points"

Of course, this assumes that the director can find the appropriate part of the book in a timely manner...the thread below relates to a situation where I asked (repeatedly) for a "book" ruling on almost exactly the issue raised in this case...the eventual ruling was indeed given under "director error" after the non-offenders, trying to take advantage of the "no-double" guidance, pushed us into a making doubled slam. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=35821 Since these do not seem to be isolated incidents, I suspect the ruling that the insufficient/out-of-turn bidder "can't double" reflects some ACBL guidance somewhere. I presume that it is meant to be short-hand intended to prevent the player benefitting from barring partner by turning an ambiguous or take-out double into a penalty double, but taken literally (and particularly applied indiscriminately to later rounds) it can lead to absurd results. I did win an appeal, but the discussion on the thread suggests that I shouldn't have...

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj8hqtxxxdajxxxxc]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1S x to you What do you do?

I'm sure this is well known, but: 1 minor - 2 same minor is described as 10+hcp, forcing to 2NT. But after this 2 of new suit is described as 15+ total points and 2NT apparently shows 14HCP. So what is opener meant to do if they opened a flat 12 or 13?