[glen]

hamsterville just like moi?

[1eyedjack]

I'm not convinced that it is in the interests of BBO to discourage critical comment. Still, I don't own it.

[Old York]

As usual, I am the lone voice in the wilderness, but I am not 100% convinced that Acbl td actually did anything wrong.

It has not been confirmed that oppo had any partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 2D overcall.....or have I missed something? 3rd hand had ample opportunity and experience to question oppo as to their methods. I am sure that such an experienced player would never assume such a call to be 100% natural.

The Director must have made the decision to adjust the score, based on the fact that declarer was damaged. However, it is clear that both sides were to blame in some small part, as the final contract was arrived at AFTER the failure to alert was brought to everyone's attention. If both pairs are equally responsible, then Ave== seems to be a fair adjustment. In this case we must rely on the directors skill in asking the correct questions, and basing his/her decision on the answers received........ or am I putting my head on the block again

Quote.... "Partner's furthur bidding was after the excessive prodding from the TD to 'play on'. "
Please follow this link......with particular reference to "ridiculous bids"
http://www.geocities...ertfailure.html

Tony (Duke of York)

p.s. Is it possible for BBO site to have "forgotten your password?" button??

[jillybean]

How is it clear both sides were to blame? One pair apparently failed to alert and disclose their agreements, how was the other pair at fault? The onus is on the pair to disclose their agreements, not on the opps to ask the right questions.

[Old York]

jillybean2, on Jun 13 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

How is it clear both sides were to blame? One pair apparently failed to alert and disclose their agreements, how was the other pair at fault? The onus is on the pair to disclose their agreements, not on the opps to ask the right questions.

The words "appartently" and "Agreements" are very important

We have NO evidence either way, so CANNOT make any judgements, and the fact remains that declarer continued to make unjustifiable no-trump bids, despite his partner's attempts to sign-off, even after he was aware of the full meaning of the unalerted overcall, so must shoulder some of the blame for the final "ridiculous" contract.

Tony (Duke of York)

[jillybean]

Tony, there was a delay in the alert of 2♦, the 2♥ call was made based on misinformation. It cant be much clearer than this.

[Old York]

From the hand as given.......

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1213048800

It may be clear that North, perhaps, might have suffered some damage from the alledged failure to alert, BUT it is blatantly obvious that South did not.
You have NOT proved that E/W had an Alertable Partnership Agreement, only that West appeared to make an artificial bid.

South opened 1NT, and then went on to bid 2NT and finally 3NT AFTER he was fully aware of the true meaning of the 2D bid......why????

We will never know what questions were asked of whom, by the TD, and will never know what answers were given, so we cannot leap to conclusions

Does South have no responsibility for the final contract?

Tony (Duke of York)

added
We must also remember that the alerting of artificial bids in acbl tournaments is only a guideline, and not a Tournament Rule

[jillybean]

The auction cannot simply continue after misinformation. The 2♥ bidder is permitted to change their call (Law21 B1), their call given the correct information would proably be pass. If you leave the 2♥ bid in what is south supposed to do, let partner play in ♥ or transfer to the opps other major?

[Old York]

jillybean2, on Jun 13 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

what is south supposed to do, let partner play in ♥ or transfer to the opps other major?

If you had taken the trouble to read the traveller, you would see 2SS=
You would also see 2HW=, 2HE= and 2HWx=
This is a stoopid hand. lol

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

The traveller has nothing to do with it. The law is clear: when MI comes to light, if it's in time (and in this case it was) a misinformed player of the NOS may change his call. If it's not in time, the TD can and should adjust the score, and that adjustment does not depend on what's on the traveller, but on the TD's assessment of what outcomes fit the requirements of Law 12C2.

For a TD to rail against a non-offending side because they "failed" to disregard the laws of the game makes absolutely no sense.

I'd like to hear the TD's side of this story.

[Old York]

It is unfortunate that the td did not explain the decision at the time, but perhaps that is understandable in a busy speedball, where one table is slow.

All we can do is view the matter with an open mind and trust the td to base his/her decision on the facts, as presented at the time. We will never know for sure if E/W had an "alertable partnership agreement" so, perhaps this entire thread is based on speculation?

Tony (Duke of York)

[glen]

In a speedball there is not enough time for the traditional bring the TD over ("DIE-WRECK-TORE PLEEZZEEEE"). have a court case, get a ruling, and proceed with the bidding. 1 or more boards are lost in a speedball with this method.

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board. The TD will arrive when they can, and, unlikely other bridge, still continue to play out the board when the TD arrives. The TD will collect the necessary information, and then adjust the board as appropriate. In short in a speedball, trust the TD and play to the clock.

I think this unwritten rule is quite sensible, and has worked out well. Thus I believe the TD actions in this case were correct for the event type.

[NickRW]

officeglen, on Jun 14 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Perhaps this rule should be written...?

Nick

[jillybean]

officeglen, on Jun 14 2008, 06:11 AM, said:

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Sorry, but this is ludicrous. A call is made based on MI, the call has to be rectified or the board adjusted. Continuing to play in a wrong or hopeless contract is silly. (edited out stronger words)

“call the TD and play on” could work for some calls; after the hand is complete the opps discover the other pair had a concealed agreement, opps are playing slow and we want to protect ourselves, accusations of cheating.

[glen]

jillybean2, on Jun 14 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

Sorry, but this is ludicrous. A call is made based on MI, the call has to be rectified or the board adjusted. ...

In the speedball, nothing stops the board from being adjusted by playing on

For example 1NT-(2♦)-2♥, transfer to ♠s
- 2♦ bidder now delay alerts 2♦ as both majors
- call the TD, put in box "misinformation, big problem"
- say bidding continues -P-2♠-Double-3♣-Double-All Pass and you go for 1100
- the TD arrives, you say "I bid 2♥ transfer, then found out that 2♦ as both majors - I called for you"
- the TD will review the facts, and then will adjust the board to Avg+
- even better, if you make 3♣ doubled you could say "everything is cool now"

[jillybean]

If you said claim 13 tricks and move on I'd agree.

[barmar]

What's so wrong with playing on? It might be "just for fun", since you're pretty sure the board will require an adjustment. But isn't that better than "claim 13" and then stare at the screen until the round is over?

Maybe if this is the first board in the round you might want to get it over with quickly so you don't run into time pressure on later boards. But if it's the last board, you've got nothing to lose by playing it out, do you?

[jtfanclub]

NickRW, on Jun 14 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

officeglen, on Jun 14 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Perhaps this rule should be written...?

Nick

Well, I'm asking for it. Dunno if I'm gonna get it.

[mike777]

jtfanclub, on Jun 14 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jun 14 2008, 09:06 AM, said:

officeglen, on Jun 14 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Perhaps this rule should be written...?

Nick

Well, I'm asking for it. Dunno if I'm gonna get it.

On this issue I encourage you to have a polite email/pm/conversation with Jacki, ACBL online, and let us all know the results of your conversation. I have found Jacki to be extremely helpful, polite and proactive with my own TD issues even when I have disagreed with her rulings or point of view.

[blackshoe]

officeglen, on Jun 14 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

In a speedball there is not enough time for the traditional bring the TD over ("DIE-WRECK-TORE PLEEZZEEEE"). have a court case, get a ruling, and proceed with the bidding.  1 or more boards are lost in a speedball with this method.

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.  The TD will arrive when they can, and, unlikely other bridge, still continue to play out the board when the TD arrives.  The TD will collect the necessary information, and then adjust the board as appropriate.  In short in a speedball, trust the TD and play to the clock.

I think this unwritten rule is quite sensible, and has worked out well.  Thus I believe the TD actions in this case were correct for the event type.

I don't mind regulations that do not conflict with the laws. I can even put up with some regulations that do conflict with the laws. I cannot stand "unwritten rules" that cause a player who does not know about them to get censured.

It seems completely ridiculous to play out a board when you expect that a correct ruling would allow you to change your last call, resulting in a completely different contract. Perhaps, if there is truly no time for TD rulings during the play, the regulations should stipulate that the board be abandoned, and you move on to the next board, the TD then giving artificial adjusted scores. This would be one of the those "in conflict with the laws" regulations I mentioned above. If online, and the software won't allow that, then get the software changed.