[akwoo]

I, for one, would not play the 3♠ bid as forcing. If the 3♣ response shows a reasonably good hand, I would not even play 3♠ as constructive.

Opponents are allowed to have any bidding system they would like. If their bidding system is sufficiently unusual (as defined by your local regulating authority), they are required to alert. They are always required to explain their bidding system upon request.

[helene_t]

acer55, on 2014-March-13, 09:57, said:

.the director said that they are weak and don t know that the bid is forcing so nothing to do..not all is correct in life.

It is a bit of a dodgy approach, isn't it? Weak players still have to follow the rules. That a player doesn't have enough knowledge to follow the rules is a reason for not giving him a PP. Not a reason for not adjusting against him.

That said, you probably have to protect yourself in situations where you should know that many club players won't know what the alert procedure says. For example, here in the EBU you technically have to alert
1NT-(2♠)-3♥*
if it is forcing but plenty of club players play it as forcing not because of a specialised agreement but just because they learned at the beginner's course that a new suit at the 3-level is forcing and they think it applies here. Of course you can't expect those pairs to alert it.

The 3♠ bid in question is probably not explicitly described in your SO's alert chart, and probably most pairs play it as nonforcing. So I find it very surprising that you (and apparently the TD as well) think it should be alerted. Once again, you should tell us which jurisdiction you play in.

[Trinidad]

acer55, on 2014-March-13, 09:57, said:

the director said that they are weak and don t know that the bid is forcing so nothing to do..not all is correct in life.

Perhaps you should be open for the possibility that this time you were incorrect.

• Whether 3♠ is forcing or not is a matter for your opponents to decide.
  
• Whether a non forcing 3♠ deserves an alert is a matter of the Regulating Authority (often your country's bridge league / union) to decide.

You give the idea that you do not know what the Regulating Authority has decided on this. That is fine, not everybody needs to know the law. There are enough bridge lawyers on BBF who can inform you about this (as long as you tell where, in what country, you play).

However, it is not fine to not know about the law and walk around with the impression that you were wronged by the TD. As long as you don't hear from an expert (probably a majority of experts) that the TD was wrong (possible, since TDs are only human), you can (and should) assume that the TD was right.

Up to now, there has been no expert here on BBF who said that you were wronged. Several have implied that it is quite likely (not more accurate than that since they don't know where you play and what rules were in force) that 3♠ did not deserve an alert and that, therefore, probably the TD was right.

And even if you are correct that 3♠ should have been alerted then you still need to show the TD how you got damaged.

Finally, suppose that you are all correct about this: 3♠ deserved an alert, you were damaged, and the TD was wrong then my advice would be to either let it be, or make an official appeal. My advice would NOT be to walk around with the idea that you were wronged.

Rik