[A2003]

Hand from ACBL tournament:
TD ruled 5S making


After playing trick 9,
Declarer claimed that 3!D and 2!S and contract making.
I did not accept the claim and called TD.
TD ruled the contract making based on GIB analysis.

Declarer did not mention of finesse in ♦ and winning the rest of the tricks.
GIB analysis shows contract making on finesse.

Is the TD ruling correct? Is it ok to use GIB to decide the number of tricks?

[jillybean]

Declarer did not state a line of play, I woudn't allow it.
GIB analysis seems to be double dummy, I doubt you can use it to determine the outcome of unfinished boards.

[TylerE]

Any TD awarding 5♠= here should be shot. S clearly thinks the diamonds are all high, so the normal line is to the K, then back to the A, which gives you a trick. Given the disgraceful state of the ACBL directing on BBO, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

[fred]

TylerE, on Aug 26 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

Any TD awarding 5♠= here should be shot. S clearly thinks the diamonds are all high, so the normal line is to the K, then back to the A, which gives you a trick. Given the disgraceful state of the ACBL directing on BBO, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

I have made several requests in the past that people not make posts like this.

From the facts that have been presented it appears that the TD made a poor ruling. That should not come as a surprise since TDs are of course human and all humans sometimes make mistakes. Maybe the TD simply miscounted the tricks, lost count of diamonds, or missed a spot card. Have you, as a bridge player, ever made a mistake like this? Assuming yes, did anyone suggest that you "should be shot" for your very human error?

Of course it is also possible that the facts that were reported were not correct or not complete (and, no, I am not suggesting in any way that the OP deliberately made such a post).

Some aspects of online TDing that are not present in "real life" ACBL clubs (super-speedy games, players from all over the world, players with bad connections, the need to explain everything by typing as opposed to speaking, etc.) make it very hard for online TDs to get everything right.

When an ACBL TD's mistake is reported to us we make every effort to ensure that the TD in question learns from the mistake in question in the hope that it will not happen again.

Comments like "should be shot" and "disgraceful state of ACBL directing on BBO" are:

- not constructive
- unfair (especially given that we have not heard the TD's side of the story)
- not nice to the very nice people who try very hard to be very nice to our players and to perform their very difficult jobs as well as they can
- bad for BBO

In the past some people have disagreed about the "bad for BBO" point. Really I don't care if whoever reading this agrees with this point or not. I have respectfully asked many times now that people try to control themselves when they feel the need to make such posts (as opposed to e-mailing acbl@bridgebase.com as we have repeatedly asked people to do instead).

So please respect our wishes and stop making posts like this even if you think that such posts will make the world a better place. It is fine if you want to discuss interesting ACBL rulings on Forums, but if you do then PLEASE try to be more careful with your words. If the only purpose of your post is to show the world how we screwed up, then PLEASE simply send us an e-mail instead.

This is not addressed to TylerE is particular (whose posts in my experience tend to be both well-mannered and thoughtful).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[qwery_hi]

As an alternative to making such posts, I'd think that anyone "disgusted" by BBO ACBL tournament directing simple stop playing in them.

I'm willing to wager $100 that if all such players did stop playing, BBO would hardly notice the drop in table count. The reason, I think, is simple - bridge is an addiction. I may be occasionally disgusted by cheap cigarettes, but left on a desert island with no other options, I'd still smoke them.

[hotShot]

The TD's ruling is correct. (Although the TD should not base his ruling on GIB.)

Easts 2♥ bid showed ♥ and a minor and since West only had a single ♣ (as declarer saw in trick 6) the minor has to be ♣. In trick 6 East has already shown 2♠ to his 5+♥ and 4+♣ and cannot have more than 2♦.
So declarer already has located the ♦T in Wests hand, and the finesse is obvious.

[A2003]

hotShot, on Aug 27 2009, 02:11 AM, said:

The TD's ruling is correct. (Although the TD should not base his ruling on GIB.)

Easts 2♥ bid showed ♥ and a minor and since West only had a single ♣ (as declarer saw in trick 6) the minor has to be ♣. In trick 6 East has already shown 2♠ to his 5+♥ and 4+♣ and cannot have more than 2♦.
So declarer already has located the ♦T in Wests hand, and the finesse is obvious.

East can have T♦ instead of 4♦, and when on finesse, can lose to T♦.
To me, T♦ is not located yet, declarer has to state the finesse and the line of play.

Your line is good for my education in finding T♦ based on probability. Thanks.

[barmar]

You've never seen someone make a two-suited overcall with 4-4 in the suits? It's not as likely, but East could still have 3 ♦.

All declarer had to do was state "finessing ♦9" and there would have been no problem. Law 70E1 is pretty clear about this:

Quote

The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.

While trying to drop a doubleton 10 or playing for 3-3 ♦ would be against the odds, I don't think it would be irrational.

[hotShot]

I think originally a Michaels Cue-Bid is defined as 5-5. I won't discuss full disclosure, if someone has 5-4 because that has gotten quite common. But if it could be 4-4 i think disclosing Heart and a minor is not enough.
East is much more likely to have no ♦ left than holding 3 in the first place.

So i would consider playing for 3-3 to be irrational for intermediates or better. And I apologize to the majority of beginners who would have know that too.

[barmar]

hotShot, on Aug 28 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

I think originally a Michaels Cue-Bid is defined as 5-5. I won't discuss full disclosure, if someone has 5-4 because that has gotten quite common. But if it could be 4-4 i think disclosing Heart and a minor is not enough.
East is much more likely to have no ♦ left than holding 3 in the first place.

So i would consider playing for 3-3 to be irrational for intermediates or better. And I apologize to the majority of beginners who would have know that too.

It wasn't a Michaels cue bid, it was a two-suited overcall over 1NT. These are very frequently 5-4, and 4-4 isn't that uncommon.

I've done it in balancing seat a number of times, but I play DONT, not Cappaletti, which is safer because you don't force to the 3 level to play in your minor.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Aug 31 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

It wasn't a Michaels cue bid, it was a two-suited overcall over 1NT. These are very frequently 5-4, and 4-4 isn't that uncommon.

It depends on where you play. Around here I've seen 5-4 quite a few times. Don't think I've ever seen 4-4. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I would say it's uncommon.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Sep 1 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

barmar, on Aug 31 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

It wasn't a Michaels cue bid, it was a two-suited overcall over 1NT.  These are very frequently 5-4, and 4-4 isn't that uncommon.

It depends on where you play. Around here I've seen 5-4 quite a few times. Don't think I've ever seen 4-4. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I would say it's uncommon.

On BBO I see lots of things that I didn't used to think were common. Most common are off-shape takeout doubles. Drives me crazy.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Sep 3 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 1 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

barmar, on Aug 31 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

It wasn't a Michaels cue bid, it was a two-suited overcall over 1NT.  These are very frequently 5-4, and 4-4 isn't that uncommon.

It depends on where you play. Around here I've seen 5-4 quite a few times. Don't think I've ever seen 4-4. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I would say it's uncommon.

On BBO I see lots of things that I didn't used to think were common. Most common are off-shape takeout doubles. Drives me crazy.

The Italians have been doing them for years.