[jallerton]

I know that BBO has been developed primarily for playing bridge and that the program is written to stop people making infractions such as insufficient bids, calling or playing out of turn and revoking.

However, the BBO Vugraph coverage is reporting what has happened at a "real" bridge table where players' brains cannot be quite so well trained.

For example yesterday in the Lederer the auction started 2♦-Pass-1♥ which next hand chose to accept. This became the start of the legal auction, but the Vugraph operator had no way to display the real auction.

Is it possible to adapt the software to allow insufficient bids, calling or playing out of turn and revoking (no doubt with an "are you sure?" warning) at Vugraph tables?

[mrdct]

jallerton, on Oct 19 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

yesterday in the Lederer the auction started 2♦-Pass-1♥ which next hand chose to accept.  This became the start of the legal auction, but the Vugraph operator had no way to display the real auction.

The way I've dealt with situation in the past is to hit undo a couple of times and change 2♦ to 1♦ and alert it as "actually a 2♦ opening" and then alert the 1♥ response as "insuffient bid accepted by south". The auction then proceeds normally and the LIN file will accurately record what actually happened at the table.

[mrdct]

jallerton, on Oct 19 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

Is it possible to adapt the software to allow insufficient bids, calling or playing out of turn and revoking (no doubt with an "are you sure?" warning) at Vugraph tables?

For leads out of turn you just enter the cards that each player contributed to trick, albeit in a different order, and advise the kibitzers what is going on.

I've only ever had one revoke when operating and simply stopped following the play, advised the kibitzers that a revoke had occurred and then waited for the director's ruling as to the awarding of the revoke penalties before entering the claim. I think it would be quite tricky to have the software allow for revokes and they are so rare (and presumedly even more rare in events that are covered by BBO) that I'd be surprised if this was much of a priority for Fred and his team.

[Tola18]

mrdct, on Oct 19 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

they are so rare (and presumedly even more rare in events that are covered by BBO) that I'd be surprised if this was much of a priority for Fred and his team.

True, especielly as you do advise a way around this problem.

But such a device could also be useful in the teaching boards. The teacher showing what to do IF there is such problems.

So, no highest priority, but useful.

[woefuwabit]

I once covered a revoke that was not spotted by any of the players on the table... I guess vugraph operators have no right to draw attention to an irregularity.

[Walddk]

woefuwabit, on Oct 20 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

I guess vugraph operators have no right to draw attention to an irregularity.

Quite right. An operator is a spectator and should remain silent unless addressed by a TD.

Roland

[mrdct]

Quite a common situation that I see is where the players claim and agree a number of tricks that doesn't coincide with the actual play. Usually it's just for an overtrick, but I recall one hand where a player claimed one-off in 3NT when he'd already taken 9 tricks (he had a card turned the wrong way) and the opps (presumedly innocently) accepted it and moved on to the next hand. As Roland said, in these situation the operator just shuts-up and moves on.

Somewhat off-topic, but still on the theme of BBO operators getting involved in the outcome of bridge events, on two occassions in my BBO operating career I've been called to give evidence at an appeals committee as to whether or not a hesitation had occurred. The most recent of these was at the Yeh Bros Cup and I found it quite an awkward situation as it was in the KO stage with quite big money at stake and one of the players involved was a close friend and former bridge partner (which I disclosed to the appeals committee). At the time I tried to be as honest as possible (possibly to the detriment of my friend) and qualified my evidence through pointing out that when operating you have a lot of things going on and won't necessarily be paying attention to the tempo anyway, but I found the whole experience quite unsatisfactory and have since adopted a personal policy of politely not cooperating with any requests by directors or appeals committees as to perceived hesitations.

[Tola18]

A follow up question about asking the operator to witness.

Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness??

[Walddk]

Tola18, on Oct 21 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

A follow up question about asking the operator to witness.

Can the spectators /kibz be asked to witness??

Law 76
B. Spectator Participation
A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

Yes, in case facts are disputed by the players, the director may want to ask a spectator (as Dave pointed out above). Whether he/she can refuse to answer questions by the TD I don't know. It is not explicitly mentioned in the laws. Maybe someone will address the issue in the "Laws and Rulings" forum.

Roland