[babalu1997]

kenrexford, on May 24 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

It seems to make a lot more sense to just eliminate the high and low scores when running IMP pairs, personally. Of course, then you get two idiots.

Yes, the trimmed means are not a bad idea.

In the end, the fact of the matter is, free tournaments are devices one should use to kill time, and many of the tds are similar to disc jockeys -- playing music, reciting poetry and playing prank on us:


1. The other day the auction went 1h-p-2h- 2spades --
the opps fail to get to 4h. What was that? Good defensive bidding? No, the opps scream psyche, my partner is summarily removed, I logged off.

2. Partner once held a Doubleton Q2 in spades. And he discarded the 2 in the course of a hand. Declarer finesses the jack and partner's singleton queen makes for down 1. Declarer tells td that had he not sent a **negative attitude signal**, she would not have finessed. Score gets adjusted without our side being consulted. The defense, I logged off.

3. We open 4 clubs namyats, north plays 4 hearts making +1, in all the other tables, 4H is played by South making, we get adjusted to south making and lose overtrick. The defense? we log off.

So as it stands, the only option is to log off, renounce playing with the tds, and go find an online bingo game.

[blackshoe]

There are maybe half a dozen club owners here in town. Two of them are incompetent TDs. I don't play in either of their games.

[NickRW]

babalu1997, on May 25 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

So as it stands, the only option is to log off, renounce playing with the tds, and go find an online bingo game.

Sounds like you've had a rough time....

[Old York]

Please click on this link

http://www.geocities...ddingsilly.html


Also, Please read the Tournament Rules BEFORE you join any Tournament

In my Tournaments, the rules have always stated......

"Frivolous Re-Doubles are not allowed, and will be reported"

The words "Mountains" and "Molehills" seem to spring to mind
Tony (Duke of York)

[jillybean]

"Bidding, Silly (7NTxx with bad hand)" is rather different from "No Re-Doubles allowed, except if artificial and alerted"

I wouldnt say anyone is making a mountain out of a molehill, rather they have just touched on the tip of the iceberg.
Silly rules abound in BBO games.

[Old York]

Hi

Thanks for all the input, but I will always continue to adjust scores and report deliberate sabotage bids to abuse@bbo.

There are very few examples of good re-doubles. I had one tonight by Cuteboy.
I had 4 examples of sabotage in the same tournament. I applaud Cuteboys bid.
I deplore sabotage bids as they adversly affect everyone's scores.

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant. If you make a doubled contract then you are likely to score a top anyway.

I love to see greedy re-doubles backfire, after 2 passes one player re-doubled, only to find oppo saving in 5 diamonds, doubled and making

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

Old York, on May 26 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant. If you make a doubled contract then you are likely to score a top anyway.

Your second sentence is true. Your first, containing as it does an invalid assumption, is false.

As for the games you run, do whatever the hell you like. You will anyway.

[NickRW]

Old York, on May 26 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

xx = anything where we will probably make
bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N
pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

My judgement on what will make opposite a weak NT is about right - I guess we come out making 7+ tricks at least 2/3rds of the time for what is usually a top - or, of course, a bottom when I'm wrong.

In truth, LHO often doesn't sit for the redouble anyway.

I agree that sensible redoubles are not that common - indeed doubles aren't too common either, so they wouldn't be of course.

Nick

[jillybean]

<rant>
I think everyone would agree that the player who bids 7NXX or other purely destructive bids should be banished from BBO. No one wants these people in their tournament, at their table or the adjacent one.

Changing the rules of the game is not going to stop these people from getting angry and bidding 7NXX, abusing their partner, quitting mid game, doubling all opps contracts to ‘pay back’ partner and so on.

Introducing rules ‘no XX, no psyches, alert all artificial bids’ is pointless at best, at worst it further destoys the game.

</rant>

[olegru]

Old York, on May 26 2008, 05:09 PM, said:

Thanks for all the input, but I will always continue to adjust scores
...
Tony (Duke of York)

Hi Tony,
I guess grand slams on your tournament banned too?
Seriously, first time ever, I decided to log off during the tournament.
http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1211938281
I came to tournament as a substitute current round. No bidding discussed.
Bidding:

1h -pass - 2d - pass
3c - pass - 4NT - pass
7d - dbl - all pass

My hand
s. x
h. AKQxxxx
d. K10xxx
c. -

Clubes lead, made 13.

No questions from TD, but result adjusted 7d -1 without any notice or explanation.

Any ideas why?

[TylerE]

Frankly, if TDs are really making such poor adjustments, I think they should have their TD permissions stripped. I know BBO doesn't police the TDs, but perhaps they should. I don't quite get the mindset of people who play tourneys, but are so concerned that the opponents might actually outplay them.

[hotShot]

olegru, on May 28 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

Hi Tony,
I guess grand slams on your tournament banned too?
Seriously, first time ever, I decided to log off during the tournament.
http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1211938281
I came to tournament as a substitute current round. No bidding discussed.
Bidding:

1h -pass -  2d - pass
3c - pass - 4NT - pass
7d - dbl - all pass

My hand
s. x
h. AKQxxxx
d. K10xxx
c. -

Clubes lead, made 13.

No questions from TD,  but result adjusted 7d -1 without any notice or explanation. 

Any ideas why?

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.
If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

I bet that opps argued that because you promised to have ♣'s, leading ♣ is more attractive than leading ♠A (winning a ♠ trick).
This is plausible enough to claim damage.

[helene_t]

Old York, on May 26 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

There are very few examples of good re-doubles.

That may or may not be true, but in either case it suffices to say "no sabotage bids allowed". There is no reason to single out redoubles.

It sounds as if you don't have time to investigate whether a particular call was made with the intension of sabotage (not allowed) or just plain stupidity (allowed) and that you therefore default to the simple no-redoubles rule. I can understand if you don't have time to investigate all dubious calls in depth but in that case I think you should just refrain from enforcing your no-sabotage-bids policy (unless of course in cases of obvious sabotage).

[olegru]

hotShot, on May 28 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.

Alerts for agreements not for cards.

Quote

If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

I didn't claim anything because nobody bothered to ask me any questions before make an adjustment. At very least director must ask us about meaning of bidding before ajust anything based on asumpted misinformation.

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a psyche.

Do opponents have rights to ask for adjustment if anybody will bid NT without stopper? Will give 2 cards support? Will make a false cue bid? Will bid 7 knew about missing Ace?

[barmar]

NickRW, on May 27 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

Old York, on May 26 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

xx = anything where we will probably make
bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N
pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

I wonder if this would fall within the spirit of what the "no redoubles" tournaments would allow. While the redouble isn't strictly artificial, it's part of a conventional runout system -- it's the only way to allow partner to play 1NT when they double for penalty.

I'm not sure I've played against any weak NT players who don't use this redouble, it's such a logical approach. So if it's not allowed, the tournament is practically banning weak NT. While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

[FrancesHinden]

barmar, on May 28 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 27 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

Old York, on May 26 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

xx = anything where we will probably make
bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N
pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

I wonder if this would fall within the spirit of what the "no redoubles" tournaments would allow. While the redouble isn't strictly artificial, it's part of a conventional runout system -- it's the only way to allow partner to play 1NT when they double for penalty.

I'm not sure I've played against any weak NT players who don't use this redouble, it's such a logical approach. So if it's not allowed, the tournament is practically banning weak NT. While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

I'm not sure you have read the post carefully enough, there's nothing 'conventional' about the runout system, which could easily be summarised as:

xx = natural, strong
bids = natural, weak
pass = natural (not strong enough to xx, nothing suitable to bid)

Many weak NT players _do_ use a redouble as artificial here (e.g. showing a 5-card suit somewhere, requesting a 2C bid from opener). But I also like the 'natural' approach.

[helene_t]

barmar, on May 28 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

Under the new laws, a SO can ban weak NT and I wouldn't be surprised if some will actually do so. Banning natural redoubles is obviously not allowed, although I suppose in theory one could ban any agreements about use of redoubles.

[FrancesHinden]

Old York, on May 26 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

Hi

Thanks for all the input, but I will always continue to adjust scores and report deliberate sabotage bids to abuse@bbo.

Fine. Deliberate 'Sabotage' bids are already against the Laws. No-one objects to adjusting for those.

Quote

There are very few examples of good re-doubles.
.....
In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant. If you make a doubled contract then you are likely to score a top anyway.

There are plenty of good matchpoint redoubles. Here are the first eight reasons I have thought of to redouble for blood at matchpoints

i) The doubled contract will be an average
ii) The double was a stripe-tailed ape
iii) The doubled contract is not game and you think you are making game elsewhere (e.g. 1NT P 2C x, you want to play your 4-3 club fit, but worry that 3NT was making and 280 or so is no compensation)
iv) You aren't sure if you are making or not but want to put pressure on your opponents to pull
v) You suspect a take-out double is about to be passed for penalties, but you don't think your opponents know what pass of the redouble would mean (2S x xx ... what is pass next?). You wouldn't dare do this at imps but at matchpoints it's a possible psyche.
vi) Or similarly you want to slow the auction down by showing a good hand when you don't have one (2S x xx on a weak hand with spade support can be a very effective psyche)
vii) You want to set up a forcing pass auction to consult partner on whether to bid on or penalise (most common example is 1S x xx)
viii) You want to stop partner pulling - most commonly after a slam is Lightner doubled, you want to tell partner it's making so please don't pull to 6NT which might not be (typically RHO doubles for the lead of dummy's suit, but you also hold an undisclosed void in the suit)

[david_c]

olegru, on May 28 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a psyche.

What was it then, a misclick?

[FrancesHinden]

david_c, on May 28 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

olegru, on May 28 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a  psyche.

What was it then, a misclick?

It might have been a misclick meaning to bid 4C.

As the poster said,

"I didn't claim anything because nobody bothered to ask me any questions before make an adjustment. At very least director must ask us about meaning of bidding before ajust anything based on asumpted misinformation."