[mike777]

I had a hand last night where the opp bidding seemed so strange and ended up so favorable for them that I wondered what my options were?

We called director who stated results stand and he would file a report on the hand since we were not satisfied, not sure what that meant.

I just always wonder on these type of hands where at unfav vul one partner shows a huge huge hand, all agreed and the other hand with a super hand(total around 36-38 hcp) does not bid as if partner has one.

We ended up winning the section anyway so this is not sour grapes I just wonder what my options in the future are.

[jtfanclub]

In general, you don't have options.

If it's Addicts, and you bitch about it, we'll get other Addicts directors to look at it, although we don't always tell the person complaining that we're doing so.

If it's the ACBL, they should file a report and they have their own process.

Other games may have their own procedures, but if the host of the tournament won't do anything, you're outa luck.

[ArtK78]

I rant and rave more than most players, since my spider sense is very sensitive when it comes to "unusual" bidding sequences.

The fact is that all you can do is provide the facts to the director and hope that he does the right thing with the facts (whatever the right thing is).

BBO TDs are always willing to listen to your complaints, although I suspect that they are desensitized to them after a while.

There have been MANY times when I thought one of my opponents was showing a monster hand (or, at least to me, the bidding would indicate a monster hand) and his or her partner acted as if the bidding just showed your average run of the mill hand, and that is what it was. Most of the time it is out of ignorance rather than some nefarious scheme. But that is why those pairs do poorly and we do better - because we know what we are doing.

[Old York]

It should be standard policy in all tournaments for all players to announce their system and no-trump ranges. Most players have notes on their profiles, in various languages, but many fail to give basic information, prefering to prattle on about bizarre conventions that rarely occur. The vast majority of players repeatedly fail to alert artificial bids. Many regular partnerships have undisclosed partnership agreements. Rumours abound about skype cheating.

In any f2f tournament, any player can demand to see your convention card. Not so on bbo. A player seems to have no automatic right to understand oppo bidding.

In my own tournaments, I demand very high standards of ethics, and am content to adjust boards wherever I can see that a player has been damaged, and give a full explanation to all concerned. I truly wish that this was normal bbo policy.

If Tournament Directors were given more help by the software, these situations could be quickly resolved. When I examine a hand, it is often impossible to judge the "par" contract and score until the tournament has finished. Adjustments after a tournament has finished do not seem to work.

Tony Hobson (Duke of York)

[Old York]

Hi again

The story continues.............

Last night, 20th May, I played in a well respected tourney, with very well respected host and TD.
My oppo (dealer) opened 1NT (not alerted) and my partner bid 2D (natural?).
West passed and I had a decent 10 count with 5/4 majors and singleton club.
East's profile showed Sayc, so I naturally assumed this to be 15-17hcp opening.
I bid 2S, passed by opener, and partner did not bid for a long time.

I clicked on 1NT opening....no answer.....clicked again.....and again.....
Partner passed.
AFTER partner had passed, East alerted "nt11-15"
as soon as the opening lead was made I could see that we had 3NT++ laydown
I called director and tried to explain, we were asked to play 2S
At the end of the hand, I called director again
He adjusted the hand to Ave==

Please read the Director's Instructions given by bbo

http://www.geocities...ertfailure.html

We should receive Ave=-
60% to us 40% to them
There is no such adjustment as Ave== for failure to alert

Tony (Duke of York)

Added 22nd May
The traveller from the hand clearly shows that :-
Out of 38 tables, 26 pairs bid game scoring 1.00/1.78/1.83/2.58/2.67
Only one pair failed in 3NT, only 2 pairs failed in 4S.
5 pairs chose to defend oppo 2H contract scoring 9.56/3.64/-1.36
Only 6 pairs played in partscore contracts

Obviously, game was the "par" contract by a large proportion

[TylerE]

Note that the page you linked to is NOT official BBO policy or rules. While I see nothing wrong with it, I think it is important to state that.

In the situation you described I would call the director and refuse to bid until given proper disclosure.


PS, the hands were:

Qx
Jx
AKQxx
QJxx

AKxxx
Kxxx
xxx
x

I am somewhat skeptical that you would have reached game had the proper alert been given. Depends on system.

[babalu1997]

TylerE, on May 21 2008, 12:36 PM, said:

In the situation you described I would call the director and refuse to bid until given proper disclosure.

when you refuse to bid, at bbo, directors will not listen to you, but rather will boot you out of game for slowness in play.

(and, no, old york, i am not referring to you-- in fact you did assign me average plus for some opps who failed to alert a 2c 11-15 opener)

A couple of days ago, I faced as opp some very advanced, but incredibly rude players at bbo. the bidding went 1s-p-4s -- i asked for alert because in case the 4S was premptive dbl is takeout, otherwise penalty and i was debating whether to dbl or bid unusual 4nt. the player answers -- that is a stupid question.

I stopped playing, director never came to the table, i eventually logged off.

The fact of the matter is that, after a while, our only recourse is to log off.

And another thing too, opps refuse claims when they double a contract and it is making, so I NEVER claim in doubled contracts, i play till the last drop. Then the opps start stalling. In one case I was getting a big score in 6NT doubled, and they stalled.

I pointed out to the director that i did make a claim on the movie at the last trick, and that he could adjust-- his answer was that I was not going to be on the hnour roll anyway so no adjustment, silly logic because some other individuals would have had their places exchanged in the honour roll, and the adjustment is not for me, but for the field.

So these are the circumstances that cause people to abandon games-- it is the only recourse they have because the climate is such that games must be played fast and unscrupoulous players get away with murder.

[Old York]

Hi

On bbo there seems to be 2 distinct type of player, and they will never agree on anything. To make life more complex, different countries have different rules.

Serious matchplayers like to have all the rules enforced to the letter of the law, this can mean that they get away with failing to alert because the rules do not force them to alert, unless it can be proved that they have a clear partnership agreement.

In social tournaments, the opposite should be true, all players must alert, because they are assumed to be playing Sayc, unless stated otherwise. If requested to explain their bids, again, different tourneys have different opinions.
I believe that all players have the right to understand their oppo's bids......seems logical and fair to me, but most bbo players disagree. In a tourney of 200 players it is my duty to protect the 199 innocent players.

Tony (Duke of York)

[jillybean]

Fair enough Tony, I see you feel strongly that players who are not forthcoming with information on their bids are doing so because they can get away with it and the laws allow it.

I suggest you drop the alert procedure all together and just have each player explain his bid to the table. If the opponents have the right to know what the bid means then surely so does his partner. Another benefit here is that you won’t have to deal with any misinformation or unauthorized information claims.

The downside is you that you won’t be playing bridge but if that keeps 199 innocent people happy, who cares. Keeping everyone happy seems to be more inportant than playing the game.

[blackshoe]

The laws are the laws. They apply to all games (at least in theory). The laws give the authority to sponsoring organizations (1997 laws) or Regulating Authorities (2007 laws) to make supplementary regulations in support of those laws, so long as the regulations do not conflict with the laws. That's the general principle.

It seems to me that it's incumbent on whoever is making such regulations to publish them sufficiently in advance of their event that players will have time to read and understand, and in some cases, comply before the tournament, with them. I'm thinking in the latter case specifically of convention (system) card regulations. It is a very serious error, it seems to me, for a sponsoring organization or tournament organizer* to fail to do this, Yet I see it regularly. Around here, for example, in f2f bridge, clubs don't tell us what regulations are in force - the club owner/director would rather make his/her decisions on the fly. Reminds me of a recent episode of the TV show "Numbers". A college professor was arrested by Homeland Security and accused of sending prohibited information (results of his research intended to help improve crop yields) to colleagues in Pakistan. When he said he was unaware of any such prohibition, he was told "it's classified." Bloody stupid!

Online, from what I've read, the same thing pretty much happens. It shouldn't.

*the 2007 laws define the term, and permit the RAs to delegate regulation making authority to them, and I expect most RAs will do that to at least some extent.

[Old York]

Hi

"Ignorance of the law is no defense" That seems very unfair when the rule books run to 100's of pages and are written in such a way that most people cannot grasp all of the ramifications.
I am perfectly capable of running "serious" tounaments and quite agree that the rules should be enforced correctly in such an environment.
In a "social" tournament I take a more relaxed approach. As I said, there are 2 distinct types, and they will NEVER agree.
There are many situations when logic and natural-justice must prevail, regardless of the letter-of-the-law, the "spirit" of the law must come first.
On-line self-alerting is one of bbo's biggest problems. I hope that one day all players will be forced to use some form of convention card

Tony (Duke of York)

[TylerE]

Old York, on May 30 2008, 06:32 AM, said:

"Ignorance of the law is no defense" That seems very unfair when the rule books run to 100's of pages and are written in such a way that most people cannot grasp all of the ramifications.
I am perfectly capable of running "serious" tounaments and quite agree that the rules should be enforced correctly in such an environment.

I'm not sure I'd consider anyone who knowingly and willfully directs outside the laws as being capable of directing a serious tournament. Through your posts on these forums, it is clear you have some quite non-mainstream views as it comes to directing. As to knowing the laws, while I'll admit the law book can be pretty intimidating it isn't THAT bad, it's freely available online, and should be required reading for any serious player. Not saying a player should be able to quote chapter and verse, but familiarity is very helpful at high level play.

[Old York]

TylerE, on May 30 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

I'm not sure I'd consider anyone who knowingly and willfully directs outside the laws as being capable of directing a serious tournament.

Is that a libelous comment, I wonder? rofl

I am not saying that I disagree, only that the vast majority of on-line players have no wish to play at such a high level. Social bridge IS totally different from serious bridge. I have no wish to impose rules written for f2f serious, high level tournaments on the average bbo player.
The alerting rules were never designed to cover self-alerts. Until such time as this is rectified, I will continue to insist that all players self-alert all artificial bids and give full explanations on request. This is exactly the same, imho, as the acbl tourneys insisting on convention cards.

I am reminded of a Victor Mollo character called the Secretary Bird.
"Knows the laws backwards and would sooner invoke them against himself than not invoke them at all. Opponents dislike him. Partners fear him. Nobody loves the Secretary Bird"
I hope this does not stray too far from OP

Tony (Duke of York)

[TylerE]

I give up. You clearly don't get it.

[1eyedjack]

Old York, on May 30 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

The alerting rules were never designed to cover self-alerts.

They don't need to. Self-alerts were never intended to make any change the information exchanged. Only who does the exchanging.

[jillybean]

Yeee Gawds Tony

[blackshoe]

I've heard that there are over 4 million bridge players in the US, yet the ACBL has only about 150,000 members. I suspect what may be happening is that those 4 million players discovered they don't have to invite people over, provide food and drink, whatever, in order to get in a few hands of bridge. Now they can sit in front of the computer in their bathrobes, and play whenever and for as long as they want. But what they don't want is to learn new rules. Hence the "who gives a damn what the laws/acbl regulations/whatever say?" attitude.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on May 29 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

The laws are the laws. They apply to all games (at least in theory).

Well, the American Bridge Association finally decided to use the WBF laws in 1993. Before then, we had two sets of Laws in the U.S. alone.

If it's not a WBF sanctioned event (or one of its subsidiaries), where do they get off telling us that 'The Laws' apply to the mom-and-pop game? Or, for that matter, an independent web site?

If Fred declared someplace that all games on BBO will follow the WBF rules, I missed it. I certainly agree that if you aren't following the Laws, you should post that. But if you want to use run a game with mom-and-pop style rules, what's wrong with that?

[blackshoe]

Personally, I don't care what rules you want to enforce for your game (whoever you are). What I care about is [a] knowing what those rules are far enough ahead of time so that I can decide how to structure my bidding and play within them, or indeed if I want to play under them at all and [b] seeing that you apply your rules in a fair and unbiased manner.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on May 30 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

Personally, I don't care what rules you want to enforce for your game (whoever you are). What I care about is [a] knowing what those rules are far enough ahead of time so that I can decide how to structure my bidding and play within them, or indeed if I want to play under them at all and [b] seeing that you apply your rules in a fair and unbiased manner.

Hey, we agree on something! Scary.