BBO Discussion Forums: SB starts summoning - BBO Discussion Forums

lamford, on 2020-May-04, 18:15, said:

This is where SB is wrong.

If you have forgotten, you can't use the UI as a reminder. But you're not forced to forget in the first place. That's what I meant by "act like an idiot".

I know there's no way to enforce this distinction, since we can't read the mind of the player to tell whether they'd forgotten. But we don't assume the worst.

"absent evidence, failing to remember system is not a Logical Alternative". "People occasionally forget", while true, is not evidence that that happened in this case.

There is no evidence dealer didn't know their system. So there is absolutely UI, but no use of UI.

I think that if the system announcement was supposed to be given after cards were visible IRL, the answer would be exactly the same. As I said before, if the announcement is required by the regulating authority, then it is a legal "aid to memory" if it was done correctly and consistently.

Absolutely, if a player announced to the table "Oh by the way, we play a strong NT in third" that would be different. But that wasn't the announcement. "weak nt, strong third, three weak 2s." If you can point to where the announcement changes from either the required or the default when opener has ♦KQJ853 and out or when opener has 16 balanced in third seat (or 13 in second), we'll have a talk (and it will probably involve a report to the Recorder in case there is an issue).

Now, I expect you SB is going to tell me that after dealer opened 1♦ and got a 13-15 3NT response, that the only reason she blasted the making 6 was that she knew, from the announcement, that partner had a strong NT in third.

So do I have this right: directors can't read players' minds, but SB can?

blackshoe, on 2020-May-05, 19:50, said:

No, not necessary. All you need to decide in order to adjust is that North could have been aware that her "extraneous remark" could well damage the non-offenders.

mycroft, on 2020-May-05, 10:41, said:

I did. It was sent to the table rather than the opponents. After the "auction period" had begun.

Next you're going to tell me that had partner instead of giving notrump ranges said "we play a strong club", with 6 clubs and an 11 count I now have to open 1♣ rather than 2 because I might have forgotten I'm playing a strong club not something else ? It gets to a ridiculous place fast if this case IS an issue, I think you're assumed to know basic parts of your own system.

lamford, on 2020-May-06, 07:31, said:

Sure. But then, anyone could be aware of just about anything. So do we always rule against a player who finds himself in this situation?

blackshoe, on 2020-May-06, 09:50, said:

That seems to be SB's general understanding, which I've been arguing against for years.

Except, I suspect, when it is on the offending side. Then I'm sure we'd have to use a more conservative interpretation of "could have been aware".

I disagree with you. I think "send to opponents only" is unworkable. If it's the regulation, then it's unworkable - you're going to get one sometimes, two sometimes, and zero sometimes, and nobody's going to know (except the opponents). Sure, there *should be* a "you're the announcer" discussion, but there should also be a "what do we play from KT95" discussion, and we know how often that happens. And that's much worse than announce to table.

But I stand by my original comment. There was UI, there was no use of UI. "Could well damage the non-offenders" is not a bar that has been met by 'once every 2000 hands partner will forget their system, it might have been this time if partner hadn't said anything." If it is, then SB could well have been damaged by "Hello, opps" - because the length of time it takes for the greeting to come out could pass information about the strength of the hand, because they look at it to figure out their first call before greeting their opponents.

If the announcement *changed*, either by to whom it was sent or what it said, in significant ways, and if those ways corresponded to hand types, sure we have a problem.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-06, 09:44, said:

We get to a ridiculous place only if we accept that it is normal to forget the rules but not our own system. If one partner is gratuitously emitting UI why should Director be bound to assume that the other partner is more competent/ethical and that the non-offenders could not well be damaged?

pescetom, on 2020-May-06, 14:50, said:

This is a scenario where you may be doing what is 100% normal in face to face bridge where you play (or may have simply hit the wrong button). We are not in normal times and a lot of people are playing online bridge who normally don't.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-06, 15:11, said:

I quite agree about the difficulty of adaptation to an online environment, but surely that is the point of the OP: a different environment is no excuse to put aside the underlying principles of the game, even if the mechanisms are radically different and require a bit of mental flexibility. In face to face bridge it is not 100% or even 1% normal to advise partner of the agreed meaning of your own calls and you accurately avoid doing so.

pescetom, on 2020-May-06, 15:24, said:

No but it is absolutely normal here to announce as you sit down that sort of info, "We play Acol, 4 card majors and a ... NT", and it's not unknown by any means for it to happen AFTER you've absent mindedly looked at your cards.

Having read the regulations about the Lockdown League and the referenced Online KO/Plate, there is no reference to "the system announcement is made as private to the opponents". These seem to be the closest things to it (from the Online KO doc):

Quote

General explanation of system is a normal thing, but it's not "their own call", so that doesn't apply (given Cyberyeti's acknowledgement that IRL, this announcement is not always remembered to be done before cards are in hands, I think, in fact, everything went "normally" per pp.18).

What does, 100%, apply, is the following from the Lockdown League doc:

Quote

Yes, I elided the rest of the sentence explaining that it has to be regulated. That doesn't change the fact that even attempting this is a clear violation of the intent of the league and should be treated as such.

Having said *that*, I stand by my original comment: given that it could be unclear, and given that BBO makes it so that cards are seen as soon as all four players are seated, I would call up Charlie or Gordon as requested and confirm that this is a valid method, required by regulation, and therefore is subject to the carveout in 40B2d.

The end of that paragraph (past my elision) says:

Quote

I assume that that was done perfectly, and that gordontd's response was "I am roundfiling this, and will pretend it was pitched unread. That means I have not taken note of your attitude and unwillingness to play this league in the spirit it was obviously, even to you, intended, officially. Which means that your team is not disqualified - yet." or a less polite version of the same.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-06, 16:37, said:

And in the online environment, you don't have control over when the cards are displayed. They're displayed as soon as you arrive at the table, you can't wait to take cards out of the board while you make all your announcements.

...which is why SB "worked out from first principles" that the announcement had to be made privately to the opponents. And then claimed it was a regulation.

Amusingly, it does in fact seem that he did send this rant totally legitimate query to gordonTD; the first actual regulation in the new Sky-Blue book:

Quote

(My Emphasis) So in fact the correct announcement, per regulations, is "please see system card." I don't have an issue with "K/S, Keri/NT, 1NT O/C T/O, UDCA and SP" in addition to the card (instead of "look at our card, btw we're weird"), because that's what everyone in the EBU is used to.

I think SB got the answer he deserved. And I think the EBU got the answer it needs for the current situation.

barmar, on 2020-May-07, 09:48, said:

This was my exact point further up the thread

barmar, on 2020-May-07, 09:48, said:

You are quite right to point this out.
You could also of course do something about this
Offering everyone a "Cards" button might be one idea.
When all have tired of discussion and pressed "Cards" then cards are released.

We could, but I think people would find it more annoying than helpful to have to manually request their cards.

No one but SB considers this a real problem.

barmar, on 2020-May-08, 17:16, said:

Everyone considers it a real problem that someone can convey selected parts of their system to their partner after they have seen their cards, under the pretence of telling the opponents.