[jmcw]

---

My RHO bids 1♣ I Pass LHO bids 1♠. The auction continues normally and our side declares 3♦.

3NT was cold(our way) and the ACBL ONLINE director was summoned. I queried the 1♠ bid. Basically, I was informed that the call is "legal", my further questions were ignored. No alerts were made the opponents were playing SAYC. Had my LHO originally passed we would most certainly have bid our lay down game.

My concern is, are the opponents responding similarly (very light) on a frequent basis?. If so, should the 1♠ bid be alerted?.

I'm assuming the director is correct in stating the call is "legal", BUT, if the partnership has a history of frequently (The Director did not ask) reponding with 1 point I am entitled to know?. If on the other hand, this is a very infrequent occurance then is 1♠ a psychic call?, and if so, why does the director not log or assign a flag to this pair?.
The opponents were from the same country and each have many 100's of masterpoints (this should not be relevant but I thought to include nonetheless)

I would like to have a better understanding of the regulations regarding the "stretched bid"' I welcome and thank those who respond.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL does not regulate the range of natural responses to 1suit openings. Nor does it regulate psychs of natural bids In that sense, the call is legal. However, if there is partnership experience that this player does this, then it must be alerted and explained IAW the disclosure rules. The TD should investigate; apparently he did not.

If the partnership agreement is that in the auction 1♣-1♠ the last bid shows 4+ spades and 6+ HCP (or even a good 5), then IMO this 1♠ bid is a psych. As I said, that's legal, but only if the opener hasn't sufficient partnership experience with this partner to expect to make this psych.

A TD who ignores questions ought to be shot. The job includes making sure the opponents understand the ruling, and their rights. But remember that perceptions, particularly online, about such things may be wrong.

There is, in some places, a regulatory procedure requiring (or at least strongly suggesting) the recording of psychs. The ACBL is not one of them.

[peachy]

Bidding 1S with 1 point is legal. If they routinely or even with some frequency respond to 1C with a hand this weak then the call needs an alert because that is then their system and not a psych. ACBL Alert regulation tells to alert calls that are "highly unusual or unxpected". If systemic, then this would IMO clearly fit that definition.

[jmcw]

blackshoe, on Jul 24 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

A TD who ignores questions ought to be shot. The job includes making sure the opponents understand the ruling, and their rights. But remember that perceptions, particularly online, about such things may be wrong.

Thanks for your reply. I share your interpretation of the 1♠ bid and the legality of the call. The neglect you suggest, shown by the director is all too common IMO. ACBL Directors (online) seldom if ever, at least in my experience, take any auction in such situations.
What concerns me isn't the fact that I got a bad score!, it is as you put it FULL DISCLOSURE and the opponents experiences. When the directors fail to promote the integrity of the game then who or where can we turn to for help?