[candybar]

I also have seen a lot of bad directing, spamming the tournament chat, and serious rudeness from the TDs and women who run that club. I don't play their tournaments any more, and I intend not to renew my membership.

The chat in those tournaments is always flooded, first with all the rules (of which there seem to be excessive numbers), and then for the rest of the tournament with all the TD's "clever" comments and spam from a few of the regulars. All the serious players I know have quit playing, and you can tell membership is declining from the 10-15 advertisements sent to the lobby begging for players for every tournament.

The only decent TD they had resigned a couple of weeks ago. The rest are overbearing controllers while TDing, and very rude when playing. The one time I called the (decent) TD about the rudeness, he said, "she owns the club, I can't do anything". My personal impression is that the club exists primarily for the ego of the people who run it.

It's a real shame, because a good club for advanced players would be very nice to have, but this club is definitely not for serious players.

[1eyedjack]

pigpenz, on Aug 29 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

Full Disclosure should be just that, no agreement is only part of the answer

Winstonm, on Aug 29 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

PURLEEASE let's not rehash that tired old argument. Both Pigpenz and Winstonm participated in the following thread and should therefore know that the above quotes are inaccurate.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=77943

[Winstonm]

mgoetze, on Aug 29 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 29 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

Nonsense. The opponents are only entitled to know as much as your partner knows. If nothing similar has ever come up in your partnership, "undiscussed" is a perfectly valid answer. Only when you have reason to believe that your partner will understand you do you have to explain, e.g. "undiscussed but we've both read Robson/Segal so he'll probably take it as a FNJ".

I could certainly accept this in a number of situations - a sub hastily arrives and is dealt the first hand and opens 1S and his partner bids 3C. What is it? He probably doesn't know and legitimately so. But when the opening is 2N, undiscussed is not a valid answer. Opponent could say, I play ACOl but we haven't discussed anything yet. That's OK. Note that I did not complain about the lack of an alert - my complaint was when I asked what the meaning of the bid was there was total silence - no answer at all after two queries - and I had looked at the convention card, though I knew it to be inaccurate. I had done all I could do to protect myself.

But when the opponents have a card filled out that that says 2N is 20-21 and the previous hand shows the card to be inaccurate along with strange +++ and ++++++ showing up during the bidding (yes, it happened on each hand) and then responder pulls the double of 2N with a 7-card diamond suit to the AQJxxxx it takes no genius to know that something more than undiscussed is occurring - at the very least a fielded psyche which in itself shows prior knowledge of "style".

What are the first words out of one's mouth when sitting down with a new pard? What system, pard? It's universal. Even if the answer is Mongolian Club, the opponents have a right to know this - even if you have no clue as to what Mongolian Club is or what a 2N bid in that system means.

And the real oddity is that these "undiscussed" explanations seem to come not with a standardized action but with an unusual action.

Maybe the only action that makes sense is to impose a simplified CC that is automatically the default for a sub.

Winston

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2005, 07:12 AM, said:

What are the first words out of one's mouth when sitting down with a new pard?  What system, pard?  It's universal.

I can only say that it is not universal, because I have playing in many events both in tourneys and the main area where I have been present as opponent when a sub arrives and there is no discussion. Indeed there is generally a considerable amount of time pressure in tourneys because the table will already be behind when the decision to sub is made. Not infrequently it is not until 3-4 boards into the substitution that they start to discuss.

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2005, 07:12 AM, said:

And the real oddity is that these "undiscussed" explanations seem to come not with a standardized action but with an unusual action.

Let us take a moment to consider what unusual action has been taken here, and what damage has resulted.
On the first hand sub opened a weak 2. His partner guessed it was a weak 2 and bid the same contract as the rest of the room. He did well to guess it because there was a reasonable chance that the sub had read the CC posted with previous partner. Did it affect your bidding or opening lead? (after the opening lead the opening bidder is dummy and at that point the position is exposed.) I reckon it is unlikely. Complaining in situations like this smacks of trying to get a double shot.

The second hand is more of a problem, whether the psyche was fielded. Without the double, it would have been, I think. But a double in direct seat of a 2N opener is rather a strange occurrence. Assuming that it does not expose the psyche, it still places responder in a difficult position: If Diamonds are running then to pull it to 3D reckons to be a losing option (although he may feel a bit sick if he does not pull it but doubler's partner pulls to 3M and he has lost the opportunity to mention the Diamonds). But if the Diamonds are not running, or if Doubler has a running suit against 2N, then pulling it is the right move. Probably odds against but not a bizarre action. Then again, opponents might have had a misunderstanding about whether transfers remained on after the double (assuming transfers are in force at all), and with the actual hand as psyched it must be tempting to continue with 3H if he reads it as a transfer. A bit unfortunate that you did not wait to see how the auction panned out before calling the TD, or even waiting till hand end - you may well have got more than an A+.

I'd be interested to know whether readers think that responder is entitled to consider that opener may have psyched (I think it fair to assume that 2nd hand has not psyched a double). If he is so entitled, that is a third option that makes pulling to 3D a winning and legitimate move.

If the pair had a history, then there may have been some justification for the action taken by the TD, and as I said earlier there may be additional facts not mentioned in this thread. But if the facts stated are complete, and *IF* the TD judged that there was an infraction as a question of fact (ie that "no agreement" was a factually incomplete statement) then the question remains whether permanent expulsion is an appropriate remedy. That is down to club policy, but if all transgressions of like severity are consistently dealt with in the same manner then it seems to me that the club will end up with not many members is pretty short order.

[Chamaco]

mgoetze, on Aug 29 2005, 10:41 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 29 2005, 05:01 PM, said:

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

Nonsense. The opponents are only entitled to know as much as your partner knows. If nothing similar has ever come up in your partnership, "undiscussed" is a perfectly valid answer. Only when you have reason to believe that your partner will understand you do you have to explain, e.g. "undiscussed but we've both read Robson/Segal so he'll probably take it as a FNJ".

Ditto.

The main point here is that *it is indeed possible* that this pair cheated, since there were some suspect facts.

But I *strongly* advocate that "undiscussed" is a pretty much acceptable explanation if the sequence was not discussed.

[bglover]

I doubt (and hope anyone would be very hesitant to say) this was cheating.

What is disturbing is Winston's glee in getting satisfaction over a clearly suspect ruling and giving kudos to the director for a job well done.

Is directing so bad that we must exult for getting (what we think is) a decent ruling? If that's all it takes these days to warrant a post in this forum then something is surely wrong at a deeper level.

Happy will be the day that decent rulings are the norm-- not when someone is so surpised to actually get one that he thinks it merits a posting.

[hotShot]

I'm in the lobby and the message apears:
tourney #xxx needs a sub

Now i go to the tourney list, read the tourney description and check the condition of contest page. If it is a club tourney i go to the the clubs home page in the internet and read the club rules.
If the tourney is not over yet, i can volunteer to be a sub.
If i get the invitation to sub in, i can only see my future partners profile and not the cc he has posted.
After i join the table i check if my partner posted a cc, read it, discuss some changes and modify it before playing on.

Is there anybody here who thinks, anybody has ever acted this correct way or someone ever will?

If i see a sub is needed and i'm willing to play, i register as fast as i can and hope i get in. I do not expect to have a cc posted, nor do i expect my opps to have one posted unless the say so. Usually the the time is running out, so i try to finish the board as fast as i can hoping to find time at the end of the round to make some agreements with my partner.

In an IMP tourney with a low number of boards, in a vul@imps situation a player with a lousy 12 count, raised his partners weak 2 into 3NT.
Good bridge ? No
Unusual at BBO? No
Successful at an typical BBO tourney? Sometimes you will win big (more often you will loose, but there are people out there you don't care if they are 2nd or 101th, if they can just stand on the number 1 spot once.)
Cheating? No.

Opening 2NT with a 7 card♣ and 9 HCP, is one of those baby psyches, most of the time partner will bid some sort of stayman 3♣ that you can pass. Opps will be silent because they expect you to hold something like 20-22 hcp. This is the sort of thing you do, when you whant to gain a lot of IMPs in a few boards. It won't pay of most of the time, but if it does you get big points.

A player typped +++++ or something! So what?
I've meet lots of players at BBO who start typing dots or 'test' or something else, if you don't act immediatelly. Are they all exchanging secret signals?

Maybe they cheated, maybe there is live on Mars and maybe i remember not to sub into abalucy tourneys.

[Walddk]

hotShot, on Aug 30 2005, 12:38 PM, said:

I'm in the lobby and the message apears:
tourney #xxx needs a sub

Now i go to the tourney list, read the tourney description and check the condition of contest page. If it is a club tourney i go to the the clubs home page in the internet and read the club rules.
If the tourney is not over yet, i can volunteer to be a sub.
If i get the invitation to sub in, i can only see my future partners profile and not the cc he has posted.
After i join the table i check if my partner posted a cc, read it, discuss some changes and modify it before playing on.

Is there anybody here who thinks, anybody has ever acted this correct way or someone ever will?

If i see a sub is needed and i'm willing to play, i register as fast as i can and hope i get in. I do not expect to have a cc posted, nor do i expect my opps to have one posted unless the say so. Usually the the time is running out, so i try to finish the board as fast as i can hoping to find time at the end of the round to make some agreements with my partner.

In an IMP tourney with a low number of boards, in a vul@imps situation a player with a lousy 12 count, raised his partners weak 2 into 3NT.
Good bridge ? No
Unusual at BBO? No
Successful at an typical BBO tourney? Sometimes you will win big (more often you will loose, but there are people out there you don't care if they are 2nd or 101th, if they can just stand on the number 1 spot once.)
Cheating? No.

Opening 2NT with a 7 card♣ and 9 HCP, is one of those baby psyches, most of the time partner will bid some sort of stayman 3♣ that you can pass. Opps will be silent because they expect you to hold something like 20-22 hcp. This is the sort of thing you do, when you whant to gain a lot of IMPs in a few boards. It won't pay of most of the time, but if it does you get big points.

A player typped +++++ or something! So what?
I've meet lots of players at BBO who start typing dots or 'test' or something else, if you don't act immediatelly. Are they all exchanging secret signals?

Maybe they cheated, maybe there is live on Mars and maybe i remember not to sub into abalucy tourneys.

Excellent post throughout, hotShot. Well done!

Roland

[mila85]

I think that "no agreement" is not a good answer even with a sub.

In Riccione LHO opened 2♣ - precision. Partner doubled and I bid 2nt. From my point of view it was Lebensohl. Partner thought it was natural and I played 3nt. It was a stupid contract but I played it undoubled and the defence wasn't the best one. It was because my pard explained it as natural - one opponent was misinformed. The result was changed by TD.
Eventhough my pard bid 3nt not 3♣ so it was obviously our misunderstanding not cheating, we should have known what we bid.

Ok, BBO tourney isn't Championship but I think players should know what opening bids mean.
If I open open 2nt without disscusion it's probably strong balanced hand. It can happen I don't really know (in my info is 20-22BAL, in partner's info is 5-5 minors). So I would open strong balanced hand via 2♣ and pass minor two suiter. It's not a big disadvantage and I'm afraid of terrible result. If someone in this situation opens 2nt:
I) he thinks that pard will understand it - he should explain it.
II) he's stupid
III) he's using HUM - random openings are not alowed.

I think that it can happen that partner will not understand my bidding. But it can't happen that I use a bid and I don't have any idea what it means.
Every my bid should have some reason and meaning and opps should know it - chance of misuderstanding by pard doesn't change it.

[1eyedjack]

mila85, on Aug 30 2005, 01:24 PM, said:

I think that "no agreement" is not a good answer even with a sub.

In Riccione LHO opened 2♣ - precision. Partner doubled and I bid 2nt. From my point of view it was Lebensohl. Partner thought it was natural and I played 3nt. It was a stupid contract but I played it undoubled and the defence wasn't the best one. It was because my pard explained it as natural - one opponent was misinformed. The result was changed by TD.

Having a misunderstanding is different from not having an agreement.

In your case there were three possibilities:

Option 1) Your system is to play Lebensohl, and your partner forgot
Option 2) Your system is to play natural, and you forgot
Option 3) You had no system and neither of you had any idea what the bid means.

The TD has to decide as a question of fact which of the above applies, compare that decision with the explanation offered and, in the event of a discrepancy, evaluate damage arising.

It seems likely from your post that the TD decided as a fact that one or other of options 1 or 3 applied in your case, both of which are inconsistent with the explanation provided (consistent with option 2). It also seems that he decided that damage resulted from that misinformation. We shall never know how he would have ruled had the explanation provided been option 3.

I do not understand how this story exemplifies that an explanation of "no agreement" can never be appropriate. It is well established that the explanation may well be a "good answer" if those are the facts, and it is reinforced in the site rules on BBO.

[candybar]

1eyedjack, on Aug 30 2005, 08:08 AM, said:

Having a misunderstanding is different from not having an agreement.

In your case there were three possibilities:

Option 1) Your system is to play Lebensohl, and your partner forgot
Option 2) Your system is to play natural, and you forgot
Option 3) You had no system and neither of you had any idea what the bid means.

The TD has to decide as a question of fact which of the above applies, compare that decision with the explanation offered and, in the event of a discrepancy, evaluate damage arising.

It seems likely from your post that the TD decided as a fact that one or other of options 1 or 3 applied in your case, both of which are inconsistent with the explanation provided (consistent with option 2).  It also seems that he decided that damage resulted from that misinformation.  We shall never know how he would have ruled had the explanation provided been option 3.

I do not understand how this story exemplifies that an explanation of "no agreement" can never be appropriate.  It is well established that the explanation may well be a "good answer" if those are the facts, and it is reinforced in the site rules on BBO.

Extremely well said!

Certain things are standard and expected to be understood by both partners and should therefore be explained even if not specifically discussed (for example, the opening 2N mentioned in an earlier post).

But any convention (such as Lebensohl) always has the possibility of "No Agreement", and your three options and the following paragraph are an excellent guide for any director to commit to memory.

[awm]

These sorts of things have to be decided by preponderance of evidence. Yes, there's always a possiblity of convicting the innocent, but if you wait for absolute ironclad proof of cheating you will never convict the guilty. I mean, surely it could be that:

(1) The 3NT bidder would've always bid 3NT on a 12-count with xx in hearts opposite a weak 2♥. He was just lucky when he caught partner with an (unalerted, not on CC) ACOL two bid.

(2) The ++++ was just a random testing sequence and didn't communicate anything.

(3) The 2NT call with 7 clubs was just a psych, trying to win the board. When partner fielded it by pulling the double on a good hand, it was just because the double itself revealed the psych.

(4) The individual in question was a recent sub, had never played with his partner before, and had absolutely no agreement (implicit or explicit) about the meaning of 2NT.

(5) The individual in question has trouble with english and/or with typing, and just wasn't able to answer the director's questions.

Yeah, sure, all these things could be true. But doesn't it seem more likely that something was fishy? You're not going to get much better evidence than this (at least not during a short tourney).

Whatever the merits of Abalucy tourneys and directors (I haven't played them myself) I have to agree with Winston that they made a good call on this one. Even if everything here was basically "legit" isn't going into a tournament without bothering to have ANY agreements (even about the meaning of opening bids) and then proceeding to psych frequently of dubious ethics to begin with (smacks of result randomization to me)?

[Winstonm]

The point that the CC might not have been changed is invalid - it was the non-sub who opened an ACOL 2H when the CC said weak. Possibly a forget? Sure. But his sub parnter bid the hand as if his partner had opened an ACOL 2-bid. More good guesses. No doubt that could be.

Next hand. "Sub" opens 2N. Partner doubles. I ask for a clarifiction of range of 2N. Silence. I ask again because I'm aware the CC may not be correct. Silence again. I called the TD as this may have been a language barrier but if "sub" did have an understanding I had the right to know what this was.

TD arrived and asked, "What is 2N?" No response again. Language problem? Sure, it could have been. TD asked again. "Explain the meaning of 2N."

Finally an answer: "I'm a sub."

From TD. "Not good enough."

Sub: "Undiscussed."

That was the end of the conversation.

IMO, it takes guts to follow through on the regulations of the site - I would hope that this was not an isolated instance and a spur of the moment decision. This wasn't the Berumuda Bowl or the Spingold - it, in my understanding, is a site for advanced or better to play in a congenial atmosphere, which at times I prefer for a relaxing evening against good opposition. The operator of the site has the right to inforce not only the rules of bridge but the "atmosphere" of the site. No one is forced to play here. If the TD of such a sight determines that someone is not in adherence to the site's policy, I believe it takes fortitude to act - instead of simply paying lip service as so many do.

[1eyedjack]

awm, on Aug 30 2005, 05:59 PM, said:

But doesn't it seem more likely that something was fishy? You're not going to get much better evidence than this (at least not during a short tourney).

Whether it is to be regarded as "fishy" I leave to the individual consciences of those with an interest in the matter. I do not want to play in an environment in which one or two "fishy" occurrences result in a permanent ban from an event and doubtless other stigma attaching. To act (ie to penalise) on one or even two hands requires something blatant rather than mere fishy. And for the record personally I see very little fishy about either hand (what has been published here, anyway)

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2005, 06:01 PM, said:

The point that the CC might not have been changed is invalid - it was the non-sub who opened an ACOL 2H when the CC said weak.

Opener must have known that he was partnering a sub. Should he assume that his (sub) partner has either read or has agreed to play a CC that was posted with another partner in mind? Which hand actually did the opening is entirely irrelevant to the validity of that point. Responder's action is potentially relevant, but again what is not relevant is whether responder is the sub or sub's partner.

A natural 3N response with a 12 count opposite a 2H opener is an overbid opposite a weak 2 and an underbid opposite an Acol 2. I am not sure what conclusion to draw from that. It is more of an overbid opposite a weak 2 than an underbid opposite an Acol 2. What would I do with an undiscussed partner? Hmm, well first off I would never open 2H until discussing it (I would pass with a weak 2 and open 1H with a strong 2, unless strong enough to open 2C which I would hope partner would guess to respond to). So having opened 2H the whole thing becomes pretty random. In responder's seat, I would probably guess that it is a weak 2 based on world-wide trends. But if either I or my partner had in profile a UK nationality, it becomes much less obvious. One thing I know for certain: if partner has a strong 2 and I pass, I am getting zero unless the room is bidding a borderline slam that fails. I am not quite so sure I am getting zero if I bid 3N opposite a weak 2, but perhaps that is rose tinted.

On the second hand I agree, based on information now available, that silence in the face of questions is not acceptable, and he should have been more forthcoming at the outset that he was a sub and had no agreements. Worthy of a lifetime ban? His subsequent clarification seems OK, however.

[mila85]

1eyedjack, on Aug 30 2005, 08:08 AM, said:

Having a misunderstanding is different from not having an agreement.

In your case there were three possibilities:

Option 1) Your system is to play Lebensohl, and your partner forgot
Option 2) Your system is to play natural, and you forgot
Option 3) You had no system and neither of you had any idea what the bid means.

The TD has to decide as a question of fact which of the above applies, compare that decision with the explanation offered and, in the event of a discrepancy, evaluate damage arising.

It seems likely from your post that the TD decided as a fact that one or other of options 1 or 3 applied in your case, both of which are inconsistent with the explanation provided (consistent with option 2).  It also seems that he decided that damage resulted from that misinformation.  We shall never know how he would have ruled had the explanation provided been option 3.

I do not understand how this story exemplifies that an explanation of "no agreement" can never be appropriate.  It is well established that the explanation may well be a "good answer" if those are the facts, and it is reinforced in the site rules on BBO.

We did't have exact agreement but it doesn't mean that we had no agreement. When I use a bid I expect partner will understand it (we played Lebensohl over weak two openings). So I say to opps what I think it means.
If I explained it as 'no agreement', opps would call TD. It's impossible that I don't have any idea about 2nt bid if I want to play Championship.

Maybe it was a bad example.
I wanted to say that when I use a call I expect that partner will understand it. I don't use bids I don't know what they mean.
If an opponent explain something as 'no agreement' I will ask him why he bids it. What will his partner do? What it can be? Does they have an agreement about any similar situation. If he answers me 'no agreement, it can be anything' then it's brown sticker.
Explanation of an opening bid should be the same at both sides.
(When you play online only one player explains it - but if he has something different then his partner must bid as he had what he explained)
I don't believe to opps if they don't know what they opening bids mean. It's not championship, you can make mistakes, but to know what the openings mean is necessary.
If someone opens 2nt and has no idea how his partner will take it, he must be crazy or cheating. When they give me no or bad explanation and partner makes good action I call director or leave table.


btw Sorry for my English...

[bglover]

True story from a few weeks ago, altho it did not take place in a tourney.

Some silly person with world class in his profile is sitting at my table as my opponent. He opens 1 spade, I overcall 2 hearts... he clicks on my bid. I refused to answer.

Now, as a general rule I alert everything necessary and even overexplain alerted bids that aren't transfers (transfers I just alert).

This guy refuses to bid. Asks me what my 2 heart bid is AGAIN. My partner explains "it's a regular 2 heart overcall." The guy clicks for an explanation again. I just told the guy "leave the table."

I do think people are entitled to an explanation. But, not EVERYTHING requires one. This 2nt bid everyone is so focused on (when looking at all the hands) was an obvious attempt at a psyche. It got fielded. So, he refused to explain his bid further, knowing it had been fielded. The guy may be a jerk, that I agree, for not answering.

However, it hardly falls into the category of 'cheat." And, Winston (and the TD) have now besmirched this person (everyone who knows the name of the player now thinks maybe he cheated and Winston has praised the TD for expelling same).

Don't you see how wrong this is? Don't you understand it is a GAME. A game where people pysche, a game where people make silly bids that sometimes work? And you are willingly heaping praise on the director and the club for endorsing this?

Am I saying this guy clearly explained his bids? No. Ami saying it's impossible these 2 were comminicating? No. Anything is possible. What I see is plain lousy bridge, a lousier ruling and someone taking the opportunity to boost himself and simultaneously further drag someone's name through the mux because the director apparently agreed with his (highly likely wrong) assessment of the siutation.

Sorry, that's sick. Both you and the director deserve a warning, not any praise for this.

[1eyedjack]

Going back to the original post, it is perhaps of passing relevance that the offending South played with one partner for the first 9 hands of the event, then with another partner for the next 6 hands, then with a third partner for the next one hand (that final hand being incompleted and scored A+/-).

The picture I get from this is that the loaded CC almost certainly applied to the first partnership, and both the subsequent partners of South were subs.

This is perhaps of some relevance because the two hands that were the subject of the original post were with different subs. The first of the two (the 4H hand) was with one sub, and the then the psychic 2N was with another sub who came in half way through the round in which Winstonm was playing, so I would expect the latter to be party to any system discussion for the second hand.

With the first sub that South played with, I would expect that by the time of the 6th hand played with that partner, South may well have had a reasonable understanding of whether the 2H opener was weak or strong, and both partners were probably playing it as strong and in synch with one another. It remains the case that the CC incorrectly reflected the original partnership, for which South was definitely at fault. But I think that this does cast a more innocent explanation on the whole debacle. I still agree that it would have been courteous for North to have responded promptly to the questions posed, even if he had just sat down, but I remain of the opinion that the TD's remedy appears draconian.

[mycroft]

If someone asks me about a standard natural 2H overcall, I tell them. "10+ (usually), 5+H". Wow. Took me longer to add the quotes I forgot to put in than it did to write the answer. And I didn't get upset, nor did the asker.

Frankly, I'd probably write "standard" the first time around, and then the above the second. Oops. Oh well, still, mine not to Reason Why with Full Disclosure.

Yeah, if I notice that they seem to be using the alert-message-flag system to pass information, they or I are gone. In a tournament, I will report it to the TD (as I did the insane psychic overcall of my strong club one LHO made, with a "no call, just reporting" message) and possibly send the hands to abuse@. But the chance of that - especially as most of my calls are alerted anyway - is a lot smaller than the possibility of "what does this nutcase mean *this time*?". "No worries, eh, mate?" to quote Rincewind.

So I suggest don't allow the "WTF" response to trigger, and if they want to be stupid, play right along. You don't get mad, he doesn't get mad; everything gets along better and people get fewer ALL CAPS messages :-).

After all - now where's that quote - it is a GAME. If people want to invent obscure ways of cheating, fine. To me, it's just a game. The OP here I think has a point - after failing to fully explain an auction that deliberately violated the posted CC, or even to explain that their CC no longer applies, they fail to *respond* - not explain, respond - to what seems to me to be a very reasonable "Let's just make sure I don't get caught again" query.

I think that the sequence of actions (assuming that the bias in the one-sided story is minimal - not accusing the OP of anything, any story is biased by view) demands an explanation by the opponents; if they choose not to explain to the TD, then she was perfectly within her rights to apply whatever sanction is available to her in the Laws, the BBO software, and the Abalucy rules. If that means they're gone, well them's the rules.

Michael.

P.S. I remember somebody getting shirty when my partner was asking "what's an opener" to one pair of opponents. Seems about the same category of stupid as "what's 2H" above, no? Well, he was suffering from too much bridge thought, and not enough clarity. He had been told that opener's partner had a gameforce, and wanted to know how weak they opened, so he could judge what a minimum gameforce would look like should responder become declarer. He just couldn't explain his question unstupidly. Go ahead and answer even the stupid ones - who knows which ones aren't stupid to the asker. mdf