Adobe BC

[hv=pc=n&e=sh83dkqj87543c842&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n2c2hd2s3d3sp4s]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. 2♣ was alerted and explained (correctly) as one minor or one major and one minor. 2 ♥ was announced as a transfer to ♠. Double showed ♥. As East, do you wish to compete further?

[hv=pc=n&s=st4hkt7dq85cq8542&w=sj9752hq986542d4c&n=skq863hadajtckt73&e=sahj3dk97632caj96&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1dp3hdppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL, non-Life Master section, so the skill level and understanding of the Laws is not expected to be great. The 3♥ bid was Alerted, and explained as a splinter. This led to (an agreed) indication of distress by West. It was then stated that it might be a weak jump shift. EW have both weak jump shifts and splinters marked on their convention cards. The Director was not called until the play of the hand was completed. Presumably, if the Director had been called at the time of the questioning, he should have asked West if he thought there was an agreement, and, if so, sent East away from the table to have it explained (corrrect?). South stated that he was unsure of the meaning of partner's double, because of the doubt about the 3♥ bid, and wanted an adjustment. With a proper explanation, if I had been holding the South cards, I would have bid 3N. This makes, double-dummy, except with a diamond lead. 3H makes, D-D, but several pairs made 4, which was the result at this table. Would you adjust the score?

[hv=pc=n&s=s8h84daq754caj764&w=skt6hkq93dt2cq852&n=sj75hat72dkj6ct93&e=saq9432hj65d983ck&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2s2n3sdp4cppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL, matchpoints. The 2N call was made after about a 2 minute hesitation. It was alerted and explained (upon request) as a lebensohlesqe puppet to 3♣. The double was made after at least a 30 second hesitation. North has over 2000 masterpoints, South as somewhat less than 500, and EW have at least 1600 each. After play was complete, West stated to the director that he did not believe that the South hand justified the 4♣ call. South stated that he believed his bid showed the minors, but the explanation given was correct according to their convention card. The table result was down one. Both 3♣ and 3♠ make, double-dummy. Do you adjust the score?

[hv=pc=n&n=sk853h8daq5c97543]133|100[/hv] Partner has opened 1 ♠, showing 5+, and is about to make a natural rebid in another suit. Which side suit rebid improves your hand the most? Is there a big gap in how you value the other possible rebids?

Acceptance of the invitation.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt43hakt84d74ca&n=sk985h6daq8c87632&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=ppp1sp2dp2hp3sp4np5hp6sppp]266|200[/hv] 2♦ was Drury, showing 4+♠, invitational. It was not alerted. South stated that she new it was Drury, but was concentrating on her rebid. The 3♠ bid seems very aggressive, perhaps covering the possibility that the meaning of 2♦ was missed. North stated that she liked her hand, but still thought it was a limit raise. On a favorable lie of the cards, hand made 7. Is there cause to adjust the score?

1. The Jurisdiction is ACBL. 2. All that is known is that he didn't attempt to change it. 3. 4N is Key Card Blackwood. 5♦ indicates zero key cards.

The table result was making 5. The double dummy analysis has ♦ making 4, and North making 3♠. The 3♥ bid was alerted, and explained as a splinter, which was the agreement. EW contend that UI was used, and request an adjusted score. South states, when asked by the Director (after the hand was over), that he had intended to bid 2 rather than 3 ♥. Fsst Arrival applies to North's ♠ rebid. What is your ruling?[hv=pc=n&s=sahajt5daq865ck93&w=sk854hq93d974ca62&n=sqjt7h642dkt3cq84&e=s9632hk87dj2cjt75&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1dp1sp3hp4sp4np5dppp]399|300[/hv]

My poll appears to have been a bust. I did not make the ruling in this case, but I agreed with it. East had the majors, which was apparently the agreement, but the explanation was "hearts and a minor". South claimed that he would have signed off in 3 diamonds, given the correct explanation. I find it hard to believe that the correct explanation changes a game-forcing hand into a signoff. NS play Lebensohl, but there was no agreement on what a direct 3N shows when the overcall shows two suits. North had a spade stopper, but the hearts were run, and then the AK of diamonds were cashed (North had cheated on his notrump), for down 3. The director made no adjustment. So, given this information, would you adjust the score? As an aside, given the correct information, I would think the proper strategy would be to bid 3 diamonds (forcing, I presume). North would bid 3 spades, showing the stopper he had, and South would bid 3N.

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s53hk7dqj9842ck52]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Your partner opens 1N (15-17), and East bids 2♦, showing 1. the majors, or 2. hearts and a minor. (The bid was alerted and explained.) Of course, one option was explained, while East had the other. Are you more likely to bid 3N in one case than the other?

The players have already indicated what they thought they were playing, and didn't change their stories. The blank area in the CC implies that the 2♦ bid is natural, but given that the rest of the card was not completely filled out, this should not be considered conclusive. Lebensohl was marked, but this particular sequence is considered an exception by a substantial majority of the local players. BTW, is there anyone besides me who would take the 2♥ bid as a que in support of diamonds, rather than natural?

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=st5hqjt7d53cak653&w=s4hk654dkt876c984&e=saj92ha8daqj92ct7&s=skq8763h932d4cqj2]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] ACBL East opens 1N, South bids 2♣, alerted as 1 unidentified suit, West bids 2♦, intended as natural but alerted as a transfer, East accepts the transfer, and South bids 2♠, ending the auction. The double dummy result of -1 is achieved, which beats the possible EW result of making 11 tricks in♦. However, South claims that he would have passed 2♥ if he had known that 2♦ was not a transfer. There was no correction of the possible misexplanation that 2♦ was a transfer, and the convention card is not filled out in the appropriate area. The double dummy result for 2♥ is not known, but it would be down at least 2. Is this worthy of a score adjustment?

ACBL, South holds [hv=d=n&v=a&s=s973ha8dkq98ca865]133|100|Scoring: MP 1♥ - 2♦ 3♦ - 3♥ 4♣ - 5♣ 5♥ - ?[/hv] 2♦ was game forcing, and there is no firm agreement on 3♦. There was a significant hesitation before the 5♥ bid. Do you allow further action by South?

[hv=v=n&s=sk84hkjdak3c96432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Your RHO opens 2♠, you pass - 3♠ - D - P - ? Of course, the double was very, very slow. How do you rate the logical alternatives?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakqj106h4dakqc542]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♥- P - 3♥* - 4♠ 5♥ - P** - P - ? *3♥ was properly alerted as weak. **Hesitation Would you adjust when a double or a 5♠ bid is successful?