[babalu1997]

I played in a tournament this afternoon. It is not the first time when the director announces:

No redoubles allowed, except if artificial and alerted.

The director then goes on to say that redoubled games will be reported to abuse at bbo.

this concerns me because it affects bridge scoring-- has the redouble been eliminated from the game, and does bbo consider it abuse? Whether it does or not, why is the director declaring redoubles to be abusive in the name of BBo.

One may merely suggest that i stop playing under this TD, and i suppose tds can make up any outrageous rule they wish, but to to that in the name of bbo , threatening to report players for abuse, in my opinion, is going too far, whether e game is free or not.

thanks folks.

[FrancesHinden]

I can't speak directly for BBO, but the general policy seems to be that TDs can impose whatever 'non-bridge' rules they want, as long as they are explicitly explained at the start.

"No-psyche" tournaments seem to be the most popular form of non-bridge played.

Reporting a player to abuse isn't the same as saying that the player will be sanctioned. I imagine in many cases abuse would yawn loudly and do nothing.

The TD is (I imagine) trying to stop the 'fatuous' and 'bad-tempered' redoubles made with no bridge justification at all, but simply banning redoubles doesn't appear to be the answer.

[jillybean]

Those who run games can do what they like, the resulting game is of course not bridge but who cares.
Let the TD send complaints to abuse, I'd hope the TD would be the first to get a warning.
Dont play in those games

[helene_t]

My p (a sub) just redoubled three contracts in a 10-board tourney. Two of the redoubles were completely ridicolous, one just mildly speculative.

The high frequency of redouble suggests that some don't take online bridge seriously.

But of course, banning redoubles is not the way to address the issue. You might as well ban grand slams, and doubles.

Reminds me of Jeff Rubins "Bridge on the Moon" essay. It is forbidden to bid game with less than 26 combined points ...

[jdonn]

I guess I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to play. As long as the director is clear from the start what the rules are then no one should have a problem. As for reporting to abuse, don't think of it as reporting someone for redoubling, think of it as reporting someone for breaking clearly stated rules of a tournament that no one forced them to enter.

[pclayton]

If a director wants to implement a rules change that will (perhaps) improve the quality of the tournament - let them ban overtricks to speed up play in speedball IMP pairs.

I think its a stretch to report a violation of the redoubles policy to abuse. This is intimidation.

I assume all redoubled contracts will just get rolled back to doubled?

[jdonn]

pclayton, on May 24 2008, 12:40 PM, said:

If a director wants to implement a rules change that will (perhaps) improve the quality of the tournament - let them ban overtricks to speed up play in speedball IMP pairs.

I think its a stretch to report a violation of the redoubles policy to abuse. This is intimidation. 

I assume all redoubled contracts will just get rolled back to doubled?

What if a redouble to play allows for a difference auction?

1♥ (X) 4♥ (P)
P (X) P (P)
XX (P) P (4♠)

[helene_t]

Maybe you can accept a redouble. We finally found the BBO-equivalent of the insufficient bid.

[hotShot]

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

What if a redouble to play allows for a difference auction?

1♥ (X) 4♥ (P)
P (X) P (P)
XX (P) P (4♠)

Let's assume that redbl in this auction is artificial and alertable (otherwise it's an illegal bid).
Now under the given rule is the partner of the redbling player allowed to pass, or does redbl create the ultemate forcing, that may not be passed?

In this case, the given auction would be illegal.

[uday]

Quote

The director then goes on to say that redoubled games will be reported to abuse at bbo.

Actually, he said:

"No Re-Doubles allowed, except if artificial and alerted"

followed by

"Sabotage bids like 7NTxx-7 will be reported to abuse@bbo"



U

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

I guess I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to play. As long as the director is clear from the start what the rules are then no one should have a problem. As for reporting to abuse, don't think of it as reporting someone for redoubling, think of it as reporting someone for breaking clearly stated rules of a tournament that no one forced them to enter.

In general, when I play f2f, if I sit down to play, I'll stay and play, even if the TD announces some rule I think is silly or even illegal. However, while I don't play much online, my understanding of the culture is that most players are not at all uncomfortable with leaving at any point whatsoever. That being the case, if I sat down to play in an online tournament, and the TD announced rules with which I was not comfortable, I'd be gone in a heartbeat.

As Jilly says, people can set whatever silly rules they like, but if I come to play bridge, and what they propose that I play is not bridge, to hell with 'em.

[blackshoe]

One other comment: under the given rules, I want about 20 minutes for my partner and I to discuss all the ramifications of this rule and the meanings of calls after a permitted redouble by either side. Twenty minutes probably isn't near enough time, but since the immediate response of the TD will be "there's no time for that", my answer is again "see ya".

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on May 24 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

One other comment: under the given rules, I want about 20 minutes for my partner and I to discuss all the ramifications of this rule and the meanings of calls after a permitted redouble by either side. Twenty minutes probably isn't near enough time, but since the immediate response of the TD will be "there's no time for that", my answer is again "see ya".

Oh I definitely don't think it's adequate to just announce something like this as play is starting. It should be advertisted in the tournament rules. Although I don't see why it takes any discussion to figure out how to play against opponents when neither side can redouble to play. To what, review the scoring table?

[jdonn]

hotShot, on May 24 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

What if a redouble to play allows for a difference auction?

1♥ (X) 4♥ (P)
P (X) P (P)
XX (P) P (4♠)

Let's assume that redbl in this auction is artificial and alertable (otherwise it's an illegal bid).
Now under the given rule is the partner of the redbling player allowed to pass, or does redbl create the ultemate forcing, that may not be passed?

In this case, the given auction would be illegal.

You missed my point. Phil said why punish the redoublers, just change their contracts to doubled instead. I was saying the illegal redouble may not end the auction, but can still have an impact, so it's perfectly valid to have some form of punishment for the perpetrators.

[hotShot]

jdonn, on May 24 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

You missed my point. Phil said why punish the redoublers, just change their contracts to doubled instead. I was saying the illegal redouble may not end the auction, but can still have an impact, so it's perfectly valid to have some form of punishment for the perpetrators.

Your question is valid if the player over the redouble bids something.
If redoublers partner passes, the question remains, if that is allowed under the given rule.

Phils question was answered by udays clarification.

[jdonn]

hotShot, on May 24 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

Your question is valid if the player over the redouble bids something.
If redoublers partner passes, the question remains, if that is allowed under the given rule.

Why does that question remain? The rule only refered to what the redouble means, it placed no restriction on what the partner of a legal redoubler may do.

Quote

Phils question was answered by udays clarification.

Where? Phil asked what the remedy for a redouble would be. Uday commented on how the director announced the rule. Two different topics.

[jillybean]

Why not have a link to the laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge accessible somewhere on BBO. Perhaps under useful links and information or under ‘play bridge’

It obviously wouldn’t prevent people running games under their own set of rules but I think it would be good for people to know what rules do actualy exist for the game.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on May 24 2008, 04:54 PM, said:

Why not have a link to the laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge accessible somewhere on BBO. Perhaps under useful links and information or under ‘play bridge’

It obviously wouldn’t prevent people running games under their own set of rules but I think it would be good for people to know what rules do actualy exist for the game.

Yeah. Including

Law 72A1 said:

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the laws.

[kenrexford]

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.

[NickRW]

People seem to be complaining about the TD reporting to abuse - though the example given seems a reasonable case of trying to tell folks that stupid players are unwelcome.

The first rule - no redoubles unless artificial and alerted - seems unplayable. If pard opens 1N and there is a double from RHO that is described as "penalty", how else do you say "I've got enough that we can probably make this" except by redoubling? Well, ok, I can pass and use xx as SOS, no suit - but I'd have to change what is a perfectly reasonable way to play - and probably not what the TD actually intended to ban.

And, on top of that, if the rule is to be enforced, then the example of 7 something xx minus 7 isn't even a legal auction.

I can understand what the TD was trying to achieve - it could have been better stated though.

Nick