International Bridge Laws Forum https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/index.php Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:11:01 +0000 0 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91458-acbl-limits-on-1nt-opening-bids/ I know our national regulations intimately and find the EBU regulations clear, but ACBL is more of a mystery and its web site does not help.
I found the convention charts which clarified which NT agreements are legal at Basic/Open levels (essentially at least 10 HCP minimum and at most 5 HCP range) but unless I missed something say nothing about which deviations are disallowed / allowed and psychic / allowed and non-psychic.
How is it considered if we document 15-17 and intentionally deviate with 14 or 18, or with 12 or 21?]]> Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:11:01 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91458-acbl-limits-on-1nt-opening-bids/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91425-false-claim/ Fri, 28 Nov 2025 23:27:06 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91425-false-claim/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91423-timeliness/
Further apologies for appearing smug, but just wanted to mention (given another thread about late arrivals) that yesterday evening I managed something unheard of in Italy: a regional pairs final that started exactly on time (despite many people arriving from 100-200km distance) and played 13 rounds of 2 boards in exactly 3h 15m (with only a couple of time penalties to show I meant business), with everyone happy and on their way home well before midnight.

I was also pleased that the FIGB system did its job, so I was able to impose that players could enter the results on their phone and see how they had scored on a given board, but not see the classification until the end. Still waiting to be able to hide the diagram and scores until they have finished the last board in the round, but that will come.]]> Thu, 27 Nov 2025 22:03:40 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91423-timeliness/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91351-is-3rd-or-5th-encryption/ See WBF systems policy 2.6b.

Is there an equivalent prohibition in ACBL?]]> Fri, 31 Oct 2025 18:05:38 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91351-is-3rd-or-5th-encryption/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91308-please-remind-me-about-alerts/ Fri, 17 Oct 2025 11:07:43 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91308-please-remind-me-about-alerts/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91302-insufficient-bid-1c-1s-1s/
After 1♣ - (1♠) - 1♠

not accepted, responder has few options.

Assuming nothing much is comparable, responder may choose to bid 2♠ in an attempt to keep opener in the game.
That's okay if 2♠ "specifies the same denomination".

Since 2♠ does not specify spades, responder is on his own. Is that right?

After 1♣ - (1♠) - 1♥

responder can presumably make a negative double, since "all" hands that are worth double would have bid 1♥.

Not quite "all". ♠xxx ♥Axx ♦KQx ♣Axxx
looks like a double to me. Is "nearly all" good enough?]]> Thu, 16 Oct 2025 07:46:43 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91302-insufficient-bid-1c-1s-1s/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91295-insufficient-bid-27b1b/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/65161-understanding-law-27b1b/ but there are so many double and triple negatives that I am totally confused - not an uncommon situation.

Its a very simple (and I suspect not uncommon) situation as follows (playing basic Acol with 4cd majors)
N - 1N (12-14)
E - 2H
S - 2C (Stayman) failing to notice the 2H bid!

TD called and
Advises W they may accept the bid. W not interested
Advises S they must make a sufficient 'comparable' (not the actual word but similar) bid and suggests that the only comparable bid would be 2S (Why not 2N?)

S - 2S
W - P
N starts to bid but is advised by TD they must pass for the rest of the auction.

My questions
1. Why is 2N not also allowable? 2N does not deny the presence of a 4 card major
2. Why is N banned from bidding after S had made the recommended 'comparable' bid?]]> Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:41:05 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91295-insufficient-bid-27b1b/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91272-no-trump-range/ Is it true that the allowable HCP range for opening 1NT is now 5 HCP ?s eg 11-15 is legal ? ACBL land Sat, 04 Oct 2025 14:00:27 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91272-no-trump-range/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91249-now-you-dont-seeem-now-you-do/
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.bridge/c/gclC4ab__w8/m/XM6YK5pz5zoJ

SUMMARY
At T2 defender revokes, pard asks about the failure to follow suit then wins the trick, and shifts establishing the revoke. A one tricker via L64A.

The fascinating part is that the meaning of L64C did not register with the comments. The interesting part being “the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused.”

Now You Don’t See’em
Many impute words such as ‘had the revoke not occurred’ which could be said to inflict less than insightful rulings on the uninitiated. For instance:

Attention being drawn to a failure to follow suit when able creates a duty to correct the revoke

Now You Do
L62A A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes established.

L62A fashions a duty upon revoker and failure to perform that duty is an infraction. There is an entitlement that the revoke be corrected forthwith. Now consider the consequences of fulfilling that duty:
1. the revoke is corrected whereby the (withdrawn revoke card) becomes a PC
2. exercising the PC option to forbid a D lead for as long as the lead is held puts declarer in the position to win the next trick, pull the last trump, and take 12 tricks (fulfilling the contract)

Thus, by virtue of the revoke inquiry declarer’s equity at the point of the inquiry was 12 tricks. This state of affairs is sufficient for the TD to deem 64A insufficiently compensates declarer. That requires an adjusted score of 12 tricks based upon infracting 62A.

RGB

Your Ruling? (not a UI ruling )

Mar 24, 1997, 2:00:00 AM
to

The following came up in a
sectional stratified Swiss
(7 boards 20 VP scale).
EW are not strong players,
if it matters.

E/all
Ax
x
xxxx
AKT9xx

K9xxx QT8xx
xx ATx
A9x QJx
xxx xx

J
KQJ98xx
KTx
QJ

West North East South
---- ----- ---- -----
- - Pass 1H
Pass 2C Pass 3H
Pass 3NT Pass 4H
Pass 6H All Pass

2C was game forcing

Trick 1: Hx-x-x-8
Trick 2: HK-D9-Sx-A

When west pitched the D9 on the
second heart, east inquired "no
hearts, partner?"

[note this does not establish revoke,
since this is in North America]

West answered "none"
East now shifted to the DQ,
and the defenders took 3 tricks.
West subsequently discovered he had
another small heart, so the
score was adjusted to 11 tricks to NS,
-100.

NS asked for redress, since there
was some chance that east would have
shifted to a spade, to remove a dummy
entry before clubs could be set up.

Also, NS noted there was some chance
west had deliberately refused to correct
his revoke, since making the D9 a penalty
card would have allowed south to forbid a
diamond lead and claim the slam.

[In order to beat the slam, east has to
duck the second heart, allowing partner
to discard the D9 if a 3rd heart is played.
Then he has to not ruff the 3rd round of clubs,
so that he can ruff the 4th round with the HA
as the second diamond goes away from the south
hand, and west sheds the D9. Now he can
shift to a diamond, for down 1]

a) how do you rule as director?

b) how do you rule in committee?

[FWIW, at the other table, EW were -500 in 4Sx]

Please quote any relevant Laws.
This director never opened the Law
book, or read the laws to us.

He initially ruled no damage.
We asked for the appeal form, and
he said "You can't appeal a book
ruling." I told him that this was
in fact not correct, that we could appeal
the ruling, although the committee could
only recommend the director change his ruling.
I said "Fine, I want to appeal anyway."
His response was "I don't care if the committee
gives you +1430, I won't change my ruling."
However, he came back later and said he was
changing his ruling to

75% of time east returns DQ
25% of time east returns S

So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
so losing 5.75 IMP on the board.
Since an appeal could only gain us 3 more VP,
we didn't pursue the matter any further.

c) What do you think of this director's
actions?

curt

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~hastings]]> Wed, 24 Sep 2025 23:11:56 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91249-now-you-dont-seeem-now-you-do/ https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91245-what-are-you-thinking-about/

---

Matchpoints

You are called to the table by N/S who claim East's second double was after a Break In Tempo, E/W agree there was a BIT
West has already put the 3♣ card on the table before you got here.]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2025 15:02:06 +0000 https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/91245-what-are-you-thinking-about/