suprgrover

Let's say that (1) West squirms over the 4♠ call and bids 5♥, and (2) 5♥ has no systemic meaning for this pair because they don't use Texas transfers to do anything other than sign off. Obviously, East has UI from West's squirming, but is their now any logical alternative to passing 5♥?

East-West are both competent players but were not able to stay on the same wavelength on this auction. Their agreement (like many club players in the ACBL) is that Texas transfers are used to sign off at the 4-level over a natural NT bid, and that strong hands do not bid this way. What are East's logical alternatives at his second turn to call. And what are West's logical alternatives after each of those (yes, if East passes this second question is moot)? [hv=pc=n&w=shqjt642d52cajt94&e=saj974hk7dak7c876&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2d2np4hp4sp]266|200[/hv] 2D=natural and weak; 2NT=15-18, natural; 4H=intended as natural, but East believes the agreement is that it is a transfer to spades.

The Alert Procedures (http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html) have the actual alert requirement:

Law 19G1 says "It is improper to ask a questions solely for partner's benefit."

One other question: what is "demonstrably suggested" by the break in tempo?

I'm looking for logical alternatives for North here after South's slow 2S call.[hv=pc=n&s=st854hk872dk9cqj3&w=sj6ht6dqj32ca9876&n=sakq93haj3dt854c2&e=s72hq954da76ckt54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2sp]399|300|2S came after an agreed break in tempo (hesitation)[/hv] North-South play 2/1 Game Forcing (5 card majors, 1NT forcing one round, natural game tries). 3S would be a 4-card limit raise. 2S would be a single raise, but South could bid 1NT and then bid 2S with a dreadful hand in support of spades. What are North's logical alternatives here?

12C1eii: WBF: For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. ACBL: For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. This discrepancy is quite puzzling, because 12C1eii is in place to meet the desires of the ACBL, so one would think that the ACBL members of the drafting committees would have gotten this one right.

Say a player takes ill during the game and cannot continue. His partner takes him home, and there are no kibitzers, so there is now an empty pair in the movement. It's clear enough to award Ave+ to the pairs scheduled to play our unfortunate pair in later rounds. I think they would get Ave- because the reason that we could not get a valid result was the ill player's fault (strictly speaking). Let's say they leave halfway through the session. If they had a good game going, they might still place in their section. Are there any criteria for determining how many boards you need to actually play to earn a high placement?

When this topic has come up before, see (http://iblf.matthew.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=4316&st=15) the consensus here has been that breaking tempo with small cards is problematic. (See page 94 of the White Book, for example. It would be nice if the ACBL had something one-tenth as useful as the White Book. We do have the Tech Files, which no one reads, and Laws Commission minutes that they stopped posting a year ago.) I would expect that, at least some of the time, South might decide to go up with dummy's ♥A after East's in-tempo play of a small heart (doing this would be playing for down 1)--the old maxim that "if they don't cover it, they don't have it" comes to mind.

NS claim that East's break in tempo implied that he held the ♥K and made retaking the finesse marked. I think they were annoyed at West's break in tempo more than anything else. Didn't East have that opportunity after leading to trick one?

[hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s3cppp=pc=n&s=skhaqt9dkj87532ck&w=sqj9742hk43dq4ca9&n=s863hj5dacq875432&e=sat5h8762dt96cjt6]399|300[/hv]Against 3♣, East led the ♦10, which declarer won perforce. She then led the ♥J, and East broke tempo (an extra second or so) before playing the ♥7. Declarer played low from dummy, and West ducked the trick (breaking tempo by a second or two). Declarer repeated the finesse, found that it lost, and has now called you over. You gather the facts, and let play continue. The defense take six tricks (three spades, a heart, and two clubs) and you are called back to the table. Do you adjust the table score? If so, what do you adjust to? (Remember, this is the ACBL. While weighting the score might be a good academic exercise, if you decide to adjust I would like in any case to see your reasoning under Law 12C1e.)

Sorry for taking so long to reply--I did not realize just how extraneous the revoke claim was until you folks commented. (I had already edited the original email buyt obviopusly did not do enough of it!) Thanks for the replies, everyone. It seems clear upon reflection that if the surplus card remains unplayed, we have our result, and if it was played, we may have to adjust (perhaps to the same -1 as at the table) but should not be giving out A-/A+ here.

A director of my acquaintance asked me about the following situation, and I was not quite sure of the right answer. Perhaps the group has some ideas. The TD is called to the table. East is declarer at 4♠ and all of East's cards are on the table, while North and South are still holding up one card. East is claiming that North has revoked. East has gone down one in the 4♠ contract. The TD goes through the play of the hand from the beginning one trick at a time, and discovers that East has a 14th card, a trump, which came from the previous deal. East had miscounted trumps and did not pull North's last trump, so North was able to ruff in for the setting trick. The TD gave A-/A+ to East-West/North-South, but I thought that an adjusted score was possible without resorting to artificial scores. The question is what is the right adjusted score here?

At my club, we don't give out late plays, so boards that are unplayed get an artificial score under Law 12C2. If your pair is directly at fault for the delay, you will get Ave- for the unplayed board(s).

While I think that the error mentioned in the Tech Files does not rise to the level of Serious Error as the august commentators here seem to understand it, what galls me is that no one with authority at ACBL HQ deemed it important to update the official pronouncements on Law 12 even after Law 12 changed in 2007. There are more serious problems, of course. Almost every British director knows about the White Book, knows that it's current, and knows that it's pretty damned complete. Most American directors don't even know about the Tech Files, never mind know how incomplete or out-of-date they are.