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?

It just did the same to me, again holding a twelve count with four clubs. [hv=s=sq86hk4dat82ckt82]133|100|[/hv] Not sure how often this repeated . 2C+4 was worth about 35 percent The pop-up description includes "forcing" though not "game-forcing"

[hv=s=sk97h96dqj54c9654]133|100|Scoring: MP uninterrupted auction 1♠- 2♠ - 3♦* - 3♥** - 3♠***- 4♠****[/hv] * 3+D, 17-22 total points ** alerted as 3+H,3+S, 2-11 8421 pts in H, 7 total points *** attempted signoff (17 "total points") ****oh well...down two I was a bit confused with this one.... a) does the 2-11 pts mean 2 for the doubleton, not just AKQJ points? :) any idea why the signoff would be rejected?

The pair in question didn't pre-alert this the next time I played them....

One reason why the Director consulted may have given the wrong guidance is that the ACBL Defense database does list a mid-chart "Defense to Weak Flannery" But when you follow the link - to actually get the defense, which you should be providing to your opponents - it turns out that this relates to a weak Flannery 2 Hearts, not 2 Diamonds. It does raise issues about why weak Flannery 2H is mid-chart legal, but not weak Flannery 2D. Is this because nobody proposed the latter, or was an application rejected and if so why? And given the de facto freeze on defense approvals, has an anomaly been inadvertently locked in? Still, as others say, this case hardly reflects well on the transparency and clarity of the regulation process, including how the convention charts are (still) presented on the website

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sjt72ha942d8ct962&w=skq3hdkj7542ckq54&e=sa64hj87d1093caj73&s=s985hkqt653daq6c8]399|300|Scoring: IMP Pips and side suits approximate[/hv] Bidding: P P 2H 3D 3H P P X P 3H/5D(1) 5H(2) P P 6D(3) X(4) P P P ACBL A/X Unit GNT Qualifier 1 - E attempts to bid a insufficient 3H. Director called. He ascertains that E-W have no agreement as to what 3H "would have meant". 3H is not accepted. East is effectively informed that since 4H would be conventional he can bid what he likes but will bar partner. He is also told that, not only can he not double at this time, but specifically that he cannot double at any subsequent opportunity to call. This latter is queried, with E asking to be read the ruling "from the book". The director attempts to do so, but cannot find the relevant passage (!). In any event E corrects to 5D. 2. S confirms with director that "he really can't double?" Director still hasn't found the relevant passage, but encourages play to continue. S bids 5H. 3. E tries to confirm again, but ultimately bids 6D. 4. S doubles, since he isn't barred from doubling. It turns out he may have wished he had been barred, since 6DX rolls. [AH lead ruffed, cross to dummy, small diamond won by the ace, heart ruffed, cross to dummy, small diamond finessed, and W claims]. By the end of the hand, the Director returns and admits his guidance was in error, since the bar on doubling applies only to the current turn to call. S states he wouldn't have bid 5H without the guidance..... At the other table 5D makes 5, with declarer noting he could have made 6, but had been "too lazy to try." Director rules under director error, giving a non-reciprocal adjustment, granting NS a score based on 5D making 5, and EW +3imps on the board. If the table result stood, E-W would have gained 12 imps. EW appeal on the grounds that there is no reason to give a +3IMP artificial adjusted score, since it was possible to achieve a table result. Moreover, since they are to be treated as "non-offending" there is no reason not to give them the table result. How do you rule?

Oddly, I won one yesterday and realized that I only declared three hands (which might of course have had something to do with the result...)

No, he swapped N and S :) ...and E dealt

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqt832hqjt32dajc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding 1♠(1) - P - 2♦(2) - P 2♥ (3) - P - 4♥ - P ? (1) Precision 11-15 (2) Forcing to 2NT (3) Since 2H is forcing, 3H would have shown ♦ support What now?