[Vampyr]

What is the procedure for appeals on BBO?

I am wondering because a player recently received an artificial adjusted score (A-) after the play if a hand because he had bid Stayman without himself holding a 4-card major. What recourse does a player have after receiving such an outrageous ruling?

[inquiry]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-13, 08:36, said:

What is the procedure for appeals on BBO?

I am wondering because a player recently received an artificial adjusted score (A-) after the play if a hand because he had bid Stayman without himself holding a 4-card major. What recourse does a player have after receiving such an outrageous ruling?

I suspect the following is a general guideline....

BBO runs a number of tournaments. The robot ones with no rules, and the ACBL ones with ACBL directors. I have to assume that the ruling you are talking about did not occur in any of those. IF not, contact BBO staff about the issue.

BBO also host a number of tournaments for which money is collected for other organizations, I am thinking BBO turkey, sky club, bbo italia, etc. If a ruling like what you suggested in one of those, the first place to go is the organization itself. If they say they ruled correctly, then contact BBO staff, who, since they collect money the money for the event will at least review with the organization what kind of rulings they are giving.

If it is in a "free tournament" run by someone who has director powers or in a team game, I am afraid there is no appeal other than to the director of the event. They run those as they see fit, and BBO takes no oversight (an exception is if a TD is throwing events to friends or aliases of himself, in which case of course, at the very least their TD powers will be removed).

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-13, 08:36, said:

What is the procedure for appeals on BBO?

I am wondering because a player recently received an artificial adjusted score (A-) after the play if a hand because he had bid Stayman without himself holding a 4-card major. What recourse does a player have after receiving such an outrageous ruling?

It is unclear from the facts you present that the ruling was outrageous.

Personally I try to my best to give a bridge score if I need to adjust a board. However the laws allow for an artificial score in some circumstances when a result has been affected by an infraction.

Whether or not there has been an infraction will depend on the jurisdiction. If ACBL then Stayman without a four-card major is permitted but the alert chart says that any rebid that does not promise a four card major needs an alert (self alert on BBO). So there could well have been an infraction.

Such an infraction does not necessarily damage the opponents. The director should only adjust for damage caused from the infraction.

In this situation typically the damage only comes from the opening lead (unless the Stayman bidder's hand is hidden in which case it may come from the later play, it is also possible to have caused a problem in the bidding).

My approach would be to adjust to the most favourable result for the non-offending that would have occurred without the infraction, that is in the typical situation what would have happened with the more favourable lead for the defense. If that was difficult to determine I may be forced to resort to A+/-.

[Vampyr]

Does BBO run its own tournaments (apart from with robots)? I think that the ruling might have taken place in one of those, and anyway it seems that the player in question was penalised for using an illegal method, not for a failure to alert.

[inquiry]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-14, 01:18, said:

Does BBO run its own tournaments (apart from with robots)? I think that the ruling might have taken place in one of those, and anyway it seems that the player in question was penalised for using an illegal method, not for a failure to alert.

Only the ACBL ones.

[Bbradley62]

I'm guessing, perhaps incorrectly, that we're talking about this post:

lxt08, on 2014-September-03, 17:39, said:

---

Combat game
i bid 2c opp ask me 2c=? i answer 2c=ask(Stayman)
5d opp lead C,we lose HA,fly dk lose,5d=make.
Then opp Find referee
say i 2c ask no h/s4,=cheat bid.
referee to we A+- N/A 40.00%.
my god

• OP never did specify jurisdiction
  
• I don't know what a combat game is
  
• Given OP's apparent lack of command of English, I wouldn't be surprised if the "cheat bid" was actually ruled to be a psych.

[barmar]

lxt08 posted just the East hand as a bidding question in this thread:

http://www.bridgebas.../67861-how-bid/

He wondered how to bid the hand when playing with a first-time partner and just playing SAYC.

If they're a pickup partnership, and he had to improvise, there's no justification for adjusting the score. Unfortunately, too many TDs on BBO take the easy way out and adjust when anything looks like a psyche, despite the fact that psyches are perfectly legal.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-September-14, 11:08, said:

Unfortunately, too many TDs on BBO take the easy way out and adjust when anything looks like a psyche, despite the fact that psyches are perfectly legal.

But when did a Stayman bid require holding a 4-card major anyway?

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2014-September-14, 11:08, said:

... despite the fact that psyches are perfectly legal.

Except when an event's published Conditions of Contest include "no psychs", which the vast majority of non-robot free tournaments on BBO do.

Vampyr, on 2014-September-14, 12:13, said:

But when did a Stayman bid require holding a 4-card major anyway?

As has been explained in other recent related threads, bidding Stayman does not require holding a 4-card major, but ACBL regulations (and possibly others) specify that a subsequent bid by the Stayman bidder which indicates that the Stayman bidder may not have one (e.g., 1N-2♣-2♦-2N*.... *may not have a 4-card major) is alertable.

Again, we're spinning our wheels if we are pretending that we actually know what happened at the table in question.

[TylerE]

I would argue that it is impossible to psyche stayman, as it doesn't promise anything, it's purely an asking bid.

[barmar]

TylerE, on 2014-September-14, 21:57, said:

I would argue that it is impossible to psyche stayman, as it doesn't promise anything, it's purely an asking bid.

This is a perennial point of debate in IBLF: does an asking bid "show" the kind of hand that needs to know the answer to the question?

Consider the auction that starts 1NT 2♣ 2♥ 3NT. Most players play that responder has promised at least one 4-card major when he bids Stayman and then jumps to 3NT over the response; in this auction, responder presumably has 4 spades, but not 4 hearts. If opener has both hearts and spades, he corrects 3NT to 4♠ based on this expectation. If you're playing Stayman differently from this, you should alert the 3NT bid.

Sometimes you have to bid the asking bid systemically, even if you don't care about the answer. E.g. if you play 4-way transfers, so 1NT-2NT is a transfer rather than an invitation, it's common to use Stayman as the start of a sequence to bid 2NT as an invitation. ACBL requires that you alert the later 2NT bid, and explain that responder might not have a 4-card major (and in the sequence 1NT-2♣-2♥-2NT, it specifically denies a 4-card major, as most would bid 2♠ rather than 2NT to show an invitational hand with 4 spades).

So ACBL's alerting rules for Stayman are based on the general expectation that it will only be bid with a 4-card major, and the opponents need to be warned about exceptions.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2014-September-15, 08:15, said:

This is a perennial point of debate in IBLF: does an asking bid "show" the kind of hand that needs to know the answer to the question?

Personally I believe "asks for/about ..." should never be accepted as a complete explanation of a bid. Playing 1NT-2♣ as Stayman and 1NT-3♣ as Puppet Stayman I have categorized exactly which hand types should bid which, so anyone else should be able to do the same. Of course if an opponent asks about 3♣ I will at first say "asks for 5 card majors" but I'm happy to provide a more complete explanation if the opponent really needs it.

[Cascade]

mgoetze, on 2014-September-16, 14:37, said:

Personally I believe "asks for/about ..." should never be accepted as a complete explanation of a bid. Playing 1NT-2♣ as Stayman and 1NT-3♣ as Puppet Stayman I have categorized exactly which hand types should bid which, so anyone else should be able to do the same. Of course if an opponent asks about 3♣ I will at first say "asks for 5 card majors" but I'm happy to provide a more complete explanation if the opponent really needs it.

One issue is that I might agree on an asking method but not explicitly agree on the hand types. Which are therefore left up to individual judgement. If I have not even considered using a method in a particular way I cannot explain that hand type when my partner might have considered using the tool in some non-standard way.

Perhaps a disclaimer like ' or any other hand on which partner thinks this will elicit useful information ...' and maybe ' ... or be beneficial for our side ...'.

[Bbradley62]

mgoetze, on 2014-September-16, 14:37, said:

Personally I believe "asks for/about ..." should never be accepted as a complete explanation of a bid.

So, if partner will bid Stayman holding ♠xxxx, ♥xxxx, ♦xxxxx, ♣--, my explanation of 2♣ should be "asks for a 4-card major and shows anywhere from a hand that will drop any 2-level response to a hand that is trying to determine the best strain to play at the 7-level"? And 2M-2N should be explained as "asks for (either Feature or Ogust-style response) for the purpose of investigating the possibility of bidding game or slam"? And, of course, similar caveats for ace-asking bids? Yawn...

[Lovera]

Bbradley62, on 2014-September-14, 09:57, said:

I'm guessing, perhaps incorrectly, that we're talking about this post:

• OP never did specify jurisdiction
  
• I don't know what a combat game is
  
• Given OP's apparent lack of command of English, I wouldn't be surprised if the "cheat bid" was actually ruled to be a psych.

The unbalanced hands in Stayman system required a jump bidding (1NT - 3♦).."followed with a cue-bid" and also "when the opener has a good fit and a maximun point (17 p.) try to get to slam cue-bidding."(The complete Stayman systeme of contract bidding pagg. 301, 302)

[Bbradley62]

Lovera, on 2014-September-18, 16:16, said:

The unbalanced hands in Stayman system required a jump bidding (1NT - 3♦).."followed with a cue-bid" and also "when the opener has a good fit and a maximun point (17 p.) try to get to slam cue-bidding."(The complete Stayman systeme of contract bidding pagg. 301, 302)

Agreed. But you don't get a penalty against you for being a bad player or simply misbidding. We don't really know what the director said was the reason for the penalty.

[Lovera]

Example 9:N ♠ K 9 5 ♥ Q J 7 3 ♦ A Q 5 ♣ K Q 2 S ♠ A Q 10 8 4 3 ♥ 9 2 ♦ K J 7 6 ♣ A Bidding: N-S 1NT(16-18)-3♠ , 4♠-5♣* , 5♦*-5♠ , p
Example 10:N ♠ A Q 5 ♥ A 10 3 2 ♦ A 10 7 ♣ K J 6 S ♠ K 7 6 ♥ 9 ♦ K Q J 5 4 ♣ A 10 3 2 Bidding: N-S 1NT-3♦ , 3♠*-4♣* , 4♥*-4♠*(K) , 5♣*(K)-6♦ , p *=cue bid (3♠ means fit in diamonds, 18 points max NT, A of spade .. (From pag. 302 .. Stayman ..). I think that penalty was for an use anomalous (2 ♣ ? for information hearts/spade not being just bidding), lxt08 is in China forum)

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2014-September-17, 10:22, said:

So, if partner will bid Stayman holding ♠xxxx, ♥xxxx, ♦xxxxx, ♣--, my explanation of 2♣ should be "asks for a 4-card major and shows anywhere from a hand that will drop any 2-level response to a hand that is trying to determine the best strain to play at the 7-level"? And 2M-2N should be explained as "asks for (either Feature or Ogust-style response) for the purpose of investigating the possibility of bidding game or slam"? And, of course, similar caveats for ace-asking bids? Yawn...

Good job responding to the first sentence of my post. Now try reading the rest of it perhaps?

[Bbradley62]

mgoetze, on 2014-September-22, 00:44, said:

Good job responding to the first sentence of my post. Now try reading the rest of it perhaps?

I was pointing out that you make a very silly generalization with that first sentence. Yes, you provide an example of when that generalization is true, but there are plenty of examples where it is not.

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2014-September-22, 10:42, said:

I was pointing out that you make a very silly generalization with that first sentence.

It's only very silly if you make the very silly assumption that a complete explanation is needed in all cases.