[the hog]

I appreciate the time and effort tds put in, and undoubtedly it is not an easy job. However, I would like to know how it is possible for a player to get booted from a tournament for playing a totally natural system. Is there some sort of standard applied for being allowed to direct tournaments, or can anyone do so?

If you want to see what exactly I am talking about, go to:

EDITED NOTE: Link removed by forum moderator. Although I edited out the link, I realize, 1) you can find the post yourself if you really wanted to, and 2) the details from the offsite link is now included below wihtout mentin of names of any of the people involved so you can judge for yourself and comment on the actions of all involved. My view is that McBruce nailed it pretty well. (ben) ...

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2004-May-11, 08:31

[McBruce]

I was baffled by this too. I assume that for some reason the TD misunderstood what was going on for some reason. Actually all five people involved didn't do terribly well. The side playing 2♣ as a weak two (which is not totally natural to most of us who are uncomfortable with opening one-bids ranging from 11-37 HCP) seemed to have decided on a spokesperson and the TD got answers from the one player when asking questions directly to another. The side that called the Director twice in the first round about this pair refused to shut up while the TD was asking questions, interrupting with "this is not fair" and "please do something!" And the Director somehow got the idea that they were trying to hide their system (because they had actived a SAYC card apparently).

These things happen, especially in the hectic first round, especially when people communicate in languages other than their first, especially when ACBLers assume ACBL rules (which, it sometimes seems, include the right to bitch when things the ACBL disallows are in fact allowed). Misunderstandings are always possible when a TD asks a simple question and four people talk/chat at once. The rgb poster was playing in another tournament of the same TD tonight though. I wonder why.

As to your question, there is no standard, and anyone can do so.

[inquiry]

Issue, Player Poster participated in a BBO tournament. They played five card majors, weak notrump, and all two bids weak (no strong forcing opening of any type), and no conventions, not even stayman.

In first round they had two run-ins with a director. First, they were discussing if the should alert their one bids (which can be REALLY, REALLY strong) during bidding of the first hand. This resulted in a director call, and they were warned.

Second deal, one hand opens 2♣ (which now Is weak), and this bid is alerted as “weak”. The opponents call the director, in part because of the weak two opening in clubs, an din part because their convention card said they play SAYC (which has 2♣ as strong forcing. Below is the “chat log” taken from the page Ron had linked (the link was removed because the issue should not be to try to embarrass the director involved, I would have edited the director out if it was mentioned here, so I think the very least is take away easy access to the same information. Since this is on rgb, I see no need to delete this thread here. But please keep discussion on merits of the decision/what should or should not have been done. Each TD is really able to run their events pretty much independently, I believe, and as you can see this event had some rules that may not have been followed (POSTER is original poster, and PARTNER his partner, others are opponents and director). Also remember, there is no way to very these logs as correct (as you can see, I edited the names of the opponents and the director)

DIRECTOR: what system is you playing greg?
Poster: Natural with weak NT
opponent 1: this is not fair
Poster: What is not fair?
DIRECTOR: I repeat
DIRECTOR: what system do you play gregg
Opponent 2: pls do something DIRECTOR! second time!
DIRECTOR: you card say sayc [TRUE we forgot about the CC - KC]
partner: and last.... for what warning. I (only) ask Partner: alert our bids 1 suit. Not anderstand warnig
DIRECTOR: 2c is not weak in sayc
DIRECTOR: answer me please
partner: my card say sayc?
DIRECTOR: yes
DIRECTOR: so what system do you play
partner: i dont see this, sorry
Poster: WE play a perfecly natural system.
partner: ALert all unusuals bids
Poster: We have no conventional bids in the system whatsoever.
DIRECTOR: i am sorry i am not familar with perfectly natural system
Poster: We don't even play Stayman over 1NT.
Poster: So what is this fuss all about?
partner: aha, must this changen
opponent 1: so, you guys play Wingit
partner: but David play - we wait now?
opponent 1: No system
Poster: Natural doesn't mean "no system".
DIRECTOR: so i repeat my question
DIRECTOR: what system do you play
Poster: Natural with weak NT.
partner: natural: better minor 5 major
Poster: Five-card-majors.
Poster: With all the respect, opps: what is the fuss all about?
Poster: We play natural methods, you don't need any special defense.
Poster: Standard carding.
DIRECTOR: we expect very little here - this is fun tournament
DIRECTOR: but i do not approve of subterfuge
opponent 1: the 2C promises a 22 plus hand

We were kicked off the tournament. My discussion with DIRECTOR went on interminably; finally I gave up when after my remark that we play a more natural system than the rest of the field she responded:

DIRECTOR (Lobby): but like i say. natural systems do not include weak nt

Are you still there, bloody Acolytes from the UK? "Natural" is what we play here, in America, man. That is *real* bridge, that's the only fun stuff!

Not that I haven't met people in my life who proudly announced "We play naturally" meaning that they play Polish Club.

[Shrike]

McBruce, on May 11 2004, 02:11 AM, said:

The side playing 2♣ as a weak two (which is not totally natural to most of us who are uncomfortable with opening one-bids ranging from 11-37 HCP) . . .

A small point: 2C weak with clubs may be abnormal and unfamiliar, but it is also natural, regardless what anyone's used to. This semantic difference may have been part of the problem at the table; many people assume that "natural" means "normal," but it doesn't.

The pair playing the unusual (and unusually natural) system certainly didn't conduct themselves well. However, if the chat logs shown here are correct the director seems to have made little effort to determine the nature of the problem and of the system the pair were playing, so the after-the-fact complaint isn't surprising. The SAYC card was the biggest part of the problem, but it appears the TD launched into an accusation of dishonesty without much warrant, particularly considering the expression of surprise about the SAYC card from one of the players concerned. I'll speculate that a lightning-quick adjustment without such an accusation wouldn't have raised the ire that this conversation did.

I assume (hope) that if the TD had understood the system that was being played, and that no deception was intended, the pair would have been permitted to continue to play the natural system (with a corrected convention card). To ban a natural system, even if it is unfamiliar, strikes me as a very bad idea for a tournament that permits a multitude of systems (I assume this one did), even though it is within the TD's power.

[dogsbreath]

Aw Ben!! that long post all leading up to a boot in the dummy for the poor old Acol player Didnt notice opps complaining the other night when they tapped my little 1nt for 1100

Anyway ..there are very few Acol players in the UK or anywhere else ..they nearly all play Benji 'Acol' which is just SAYC for the hard-of-hearing and not a 'real mans' system at all

And ..TD's must have their little jokes.. my partner & I were awarded Avg+ on a board a few weeks ago (IMPs pairs tourney) .. later I noticed we got -4.5 imps for our Avg+ ..what sense does that make?

Rgds Dog

[inquiry]

dogsbreath, on May 11 2004, 02:47 PM, said:

Aw Ben!! that long post all leading up to a boot in the dummy for the poor old Acol player Didnt notice opps complaining the other night when they tapped my little 1nt for 1100

Hi, I wasn't involved in anyway other than removing the names of all involved in the thread (director and four players) so that it could be read by anyone interested and they can make their own decision.

I suspect the Director, called to this table twice in the first round, and not getting answers from the player he (or she) questioned directly, probably got them removed for non-responsiveness... althought the comment about weak NT is a bit odd.. since I love kaplan sheinwold and play weak NT fairly often. I consider that natural too.

Ben

[Gweny]

Hi all.

Let us remove part of mystery here... I am director in question.

I do NOT remove this pair for playing natural system. And I explain this is not reason for removal. (hence my confusion at this thread)

Further I do not bar either partner from playing in Fishy - this is evident by one of this players playing in Fishy last night.

I remove this pair for failing to answer me. While log show what one partner see/respond, other partner is evasive and answers contridict what is post.

Opps is confuse and mad for they experience same non responsiveness from one of partners. Other partner seem to focus on defense vs "natural" system when this is not what is question.

Fishy is very open casual tournament and only requirement is to alert NON NATURAL bids.

Where I experience problem is when I do not get straight answers to reasonable questions. System they use play absolutely no part in removing this pair from Fishy.

So please remain calm I am not prejudice vs any system. I remain you servant...

[McBruce]

You know, the more I look at this the more I am appalled at the actions of the so-called non-offending pair.

They called the TD in the first round because their opponents were discussing in English whether they should alert some of their bids. Had these opponents listened to the conversation instead of calling the TD as a knee-jerk reaction, they would have learned something about the system. It's not like one player opened a forcing pass and said "partner, do I have to alert?" This was a natural bid which might be alertable because of the small possibility that it may be very strong.

They called the TD again in the first round because their cc said one thing and their explanation said another. A fair-minded person would simply say that "your explanation is not anything like your cc, is your explanation right or is your cc right?" This pair appaerently smelled a way to get an undeserved good score and screamed for the TD.

When the Director arrived, one player interrupted the TD's attempt to get the facts by saying "this is not fair" (I wonder what exactly the player thought was unfair), and the other said "please do something! second time!" (like the first incident was a huge violation). I get the clear impression that this pair was more interested in playing razzle-dazzle than bridge: it was more important to them to get a penalty assigned to the opponents than to actually think.

We TDs need to swat this attitude like bugs on the window sill. Ask yourself whether the complaining player seems more interested in restoring equity or more interested in getting the opponents penalized. If the latter, be absolutely sure that the offenders have actually offended before you give a penalty.

Tonight a player called me to the table, claiming that dummy had urged a claim. Declarer had the rest of the tricks when I arrived, but I didn't know when dummy had made his announcement. I gave a warning and the TD caller urged me to give a penalty. "Were you damaged by the dummy asking for a claim?" I said.

The player did not respond and refused to play on. I warned the player not to delay, and still no response, so I subbed someone else in and added the player to my temporary ban list.

[inquiry]

McBruce, on May 12 2004, 01:25 AM, said:

Tonight a player called me to the table, claiming that dummy had urged a claim. Declarer had the rest of the tricks when I arrived, but I didn't know when dummy had made his announcement. I gave a warning and the TD caller urged me to give a penalty. "Were you damaged by the dummy asking for a claim?" I said.

The player did not respond and refused to play on. I warned the player not to delay, and still no response, so I subbed someone else in and added the player to my temporary ban list.

Everyone should take note. The person callng the director for dummy telling declearer to claim was right, in principle. Dummy's should remain silent. The director first gave a warning to the offending side. So how did the person in the right end up in trouble? It was easy, and obvious.

This ruling didn't sit well with the other side (they wanted blood). The director then, reasonably asked how they were damaged. TD's in an online environment as rule don't liek their rulings challenged...after all there will be no appeal committee and there is no higher authority to take your complaint too. Get your ruling and move on. This TD actually asked to make sure there was no damage done by the claim. Got silence and refused to play. So the player "in the right" (so to speak), got both booted (this represents a non-finished tournmnent by the way so can affect future tournments as well), and banned from this director's events in the near future. This sadly is not so uncommon, in on-line events, the TD's decide what the rules are, what the rulings will be. It really does no one any good, and only potentially slows up the game, for you to refuse to accept their rulings. Consider them the local supreme court.. .their rulings are final.

Ben

[McBruce]

I don't want to give the impression that I am the ultimate authority in my tournaments although I realize that some TDs take that view.

I expect the player in question to contact me when they find they cannot enter the next one. We'll talk, and if I get the impression that the player has learned their lesson, I'll be happy to lift the ban. It may conceivably be that the player had a connection problem at that point, or some local matter that had to be attended to, but since the player logged off 10 seconds after being booted, I find this unlikely.

In general, it does absolutely no good to dispute a ruling at length with a TD during the game. Your best strategy is to let the Director know you disagree with the ruling and would like to discuss it later...and then forget it and PLAY ON!

The NFL has instant replay: it's imperfect but it helps. TDs have movies, also imperfect (no chat or timing of bids/plays if that is an issue) but it helps. Losers (in bridge and in the NFL) give up when a ruling goes against them; winners shrug it off and do their best after a bad call. The difference is, if the TD has made a mistake it can be corrected after the game once tempers are cooler.

I post online a rating system for my tournament series, so I can change the order of finish long after the BBO results are final. If anyone finds a clear error in my decisions, I would do so.

[Frosty]

Hark!!! A very interesting point emerging here amongst the who-done-its (and I coulda told you it was Gweny who was TD in one guess :-)!!! - My heroine!!!).

But I stray .... from THE POINT: Some players who are wont to use the CALL DIRECTOR button freely are more interested in manipulating the results via penalty to their opponents than in actually playing the game. And I agree - get out the RAID and exterminate em!

AND - shocking though it may be - there are even players who intentionally cause mischief to disrupt events. These "naturalists" exhibit many of the typical traits: bidding styles guaranteed to confuse, failure to actually answer questions, conflicting information from the partners, willingness to prolong/repeat TD calls by being obtuse.

The conversation at the table could have gone on ad nauseum - clearly nothing was going to be resolved.

Frosty

[the hog]

"there are even players who intentionally cause mischief to disrupt events....bidding styles guaranteed to confuse"

As has been pointed out in many forums including this one, there is nothing wrong, legally or ethically with a bidding system, bids or bidding style that is designed to confuse, mislead, be ambiguous or make the opposition use their brains, PROVIDED that you provide the opposition with a full disclosure of what the bid means.

Please note - I said what the bid MEANS, not necessarily what I have in my hand.

Sting cues are a perfect example of this.

eg if the bidding is

1H 3H
4C

and this is explained as a C cue bid, this is perfectly legitimate, even if I do not have a C control. Also of course, if there is a partnership understanding that this has been done before, then opponents are privy to that information. There is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with the bid itself though.

Another example might be a 2H opening that could be a weak 2 in H or a weak 2 in S. - This is perfectly acceptable provided the opponents are fully informed of the bid's meaning, and that it is non forcing. (I realise that this bid is not legal in the ACBL, but ACBL regulations are not in force in on line Bridge or in other countries, thankfully).

Another example is to play a 2C opening as a weak 2 and to play no strong bids.