[pigpenz]

at nationals for awhile you had to pay to initiate an appeal...in the hope that frivolous appeals would be discouraged, I have no idea if the ACBL still does this. On bridge matters TD have to make bridge desicsions according to the
Rules of Bridge, when it involves something else then that is when the appeals committe e comes into being.

Full disclosure is what it means, full disclosure! but how many times do we run into opps who dont really fully disclose everything. Take for example i know my partner will open weak twos vull on any ratty six card suit. Now is that a partnership understanding? I have always felt opps are entitled to that information.

Zero Tolerance should also be zero tolerance, people in the Net have a tendency to say things that they wouldnt say to someone in person, each case has to be reviewed as is needed.

[keylime]

It's ironic that ZT is being discussed...

....considering that many TD's in online and real life bridge do very little if anything to discourage the behavior(s) that ZT was designed to limit. I have the gut feeling that the ones who direct don't want to be "the bad guy" with regards to this.

Full disclosure online is difficult at best. However, it's just as painstaking in real-life at the lower levels. This is part of the reason I am adding supplemental sheets and the WBF Convention Card to my regular ACBL card. I don't think I give enough full disclosure put it that way.

[Winstonm]

There is no perfect world, unfortunately. Trying too hard to create one slows the game to a crawl, and gives some players the mistaken idea that they are entitled to the same bridge knowledge that their opponents possess.

As an example, suppose I open 2H on AJ9xxx, and the opponents reach a 4S contract, and I lead a singleton diamond. My partner wins and returns the lowest diamond spot card and the opponent asks what that means. I explain that this is suit preference for clubs; however, I also know from my hand and the bidding that partner cannot hold the club Ace, so his signal is actually warning me not to underlead my heart honor(s). So instead of leading a club, I exit passively with a trump and later we catch 2 heart tricks to beat the contract whereas a club lead into declarer's AJ would have provided a heart pitch.

So have I fully disclosed? I have explained our agreements. However, I have not explained what I have learned over the course of many years of play. Partner and I have never actually discussed the meaning of this non-signal signal, but I would expect any competent partner to know and use it.

In most situations, nothing would be said as all the players involved would understand what happened. However, I have had similar situations occur where weaker opponents yelled for the director when this occurred. IMO, my responsibility as a player is to explain my agreements - I should not be compelled to teach the subtleties of the game during live play.

As long as all parties are following the "spirit" of the rule and trying to fully disclose within a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient.

WinstonM

[glen]

Let me modify this above example to bring it more in line with the complex cases that occur.

Suppose, playing online bridge, your partner opens 2♥ on A987xx, the opponents reach a 4♠ contract, and your partner leads a ♦ to your ace. The lead looks like a singleton to you, based on your holding and dummy’s. You hold Qx of ♥s, and nothing in ♣s. You play some non-standard carding, including reverse suit-preference (following what Meckwell does). Although your carding methods are somewhat marked on the convention card in the very limited space available, in the interest of explaining your methods, you private message the opponents to tell them you play “reverse suit preference”.

Looking at your holdings, and the two small ♥s in dummy, it seems dangerous to signal for a ♥ back, since this partner tends to lead from a AK headed suit, to have a look, before switching to a singleton. The middle ♦ cards, showing no preference, might be confusing to partner. So you play back a high ♦ spot, indicating a preference for ♣s, using reverse, or upside-down, suit preference.

Partner sees the signal, but knows from the bidding and his hand that you are very unlikely to hold the ♣ ace. So after ruffing the ♦, he exits passively with a trump. Later declarer decides to finesse in ♣s to make his contract, losing to the ♣ King held by the weak two bidder. Finessing the Queen in ♥s, twice, instead would have allowed him to make the contract, as it turns out.

Declarer, from his point of view, considers he might have been a victim of misinformation or of some miscommunication, based on you saying you had a preference for clubs, but seeing both you didn’t have one, and your partner didn’t assume you did. In this type of situation, it could easily be not clear to Declarer what had happened.

For resolution of this type of concern, I think the recommended approach should be to involve the Director. There are several reasons for this:

- For online bridge there is often little time for lengthy exchange of views before the next board or next round, and the game needs to go on.

- In the follow-up discussion between the two sides, there may be subsequent miscommunications or misunderstandings, resulting in an escalating incident.

- Players are under no obligation to explain their actions to their opponents, but just their agreements.

- Neither side may be able to relate to the viewpoint of the other.

So I think that Declarer here, with a possibly valid concern, should click for the Director (no “yelled for the Director” online as in your example). Then the next hand, or next round should go on. The Tournament Director (TD) arrives, and is informed of the situation from the perspective of Declarer. This calling of the TD should not be an ask for score correction, at least at this point, but instead just asking that the TD resolve a concern.

What I would like the Directors to do in these cases is to first understand the concern expressed, and if the concern can be handled right away, then do so. However without looking at the hand and just saying “the opponents have a right to false card” does not help settle the concern for Declarer in this instance. Once the TD accepts there is a concern, s/he should indicate that it will be looked at, and the players should go on to the next hand. In this case, the TD can say something like “I’ll look at the board and get back to you.”

Second, as time permits, the TD should determine if misinformation occurred, by confirming the partnership agreement involved and looking at the hand. Here, in this example, the TD might message you to ask what the high ♦ spot meant. You might reply that it was reverse suit preference, for ♣s. In the interest of speedy resolution, it would also help to indicate why you did what you did. Here you might add a note such as “I decided that I could not risk a heart return, so signalled for clubs, even though I had nothing in the suit.”

Third, as time permits, the TD should indicate the resolution of the matter to the players involved in the hand. To you, this might be “you did nothing wrong”. To Declarer, this could be something like “They described their agreements accurately; the defender did not want to risk signalling for hearts so decided to signal for clubs.”

So the TD becomes a facilitator in the resolution of concerns between players, leaving the players to play the game. This helps with the enjoyment of the game for all involved, and also maintains the flow of the game, including avoiding escalating incidents, which usually end awfully.

The TD may also find cases where there has been miscommunication and misunderstanding. Perhaps the Declarer in this case could not comprehend what ‘reverse suit preference’ meant. The TD may suggest that the method be described as ‘upside down suit preference’ and, in the limited space on the convention card putting ‘u/d suit pref’. The miscommunication or misunderstanding does not mean that one side is right, and one is wrong, and the TD should rule on damage here. Instead the TD looks for ways to ensure the misunderstanding/miscommunication doesn’t occur again, or occurs less often.

So I disagree that ‘following the “spirit” of the rule and trying to fully disclose with a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient’. I believe the TD will need to look into possible misinformation concerns from time to time, and by doing this the TD will improve things, both for the present, and for future tournaments. To ensure there is closure on these concerns, the TD should inform the involved players of the resolution.

With many of the concerns on possible misinformation, it will be difficult for the TD to both determine that misinformation did occur, and that it did do significant damage. Thus I believe that the TD priority should not be on the determination of damages, and/or assuming one side is the ‘offending side’, but on why the situation arose. For example there could very well have been misunderstanding or miscommunication between players. The TD should focus on how the situation can be prevented from occurring again and how to alleviate the present concern, instead of trying to reach the perfect ruling on the hand in question, which might only be possible after lengthy study and consultation with others.

So in summary, I ask that the TDs look closely at misinformation concerns, to facilitate the resolution of these for both the present and the future. I ask that the TDs inform players after they have looked at a concern, so that both the immediate concerns are alleviated, and that the concerns occur less often in the future. This is what I hope for in an online game with paid directors.

[Winstonm]

Quote

So I disagree that ‘following the “spirit” of the rule and trying to fully disclose with a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient’. I believe the TD will need to look into possible misinformation concerns from time to time, and by doing this the TD will improve things, both for the present, and for future tournaments. To ensure there is closure on these concerns, the TD should inform the involved players of the resolution.

I do not disagree with your points that it would be best for the director to inform the players of his or her decisions and reasoning. It seems to me though that somewhere there has to be a point drawn between reasonable and unreasonable delays for informational purposes. A better convention card would help. Mandatory posting of convention cards would be nice. But most of all, what would be best is simply nice people acting nicely toward one another. Why, I wonder, is that so hard?

WinstonM