showle

Still, from what I read above, it begs the question of what to do after a common auction like 1NT-3NT. Declarer again leads a small diamond towards dummy's void, and says 'trump it'. Now the card that declarer likely meant to play from dummy cannot be known.

The strange part is that the opponents have no obligation to remind declarer of the contract, and apparently dummy *must* remain silent. Theoretically at least the table could stall out, with all four players looking at one another and rolling their eyes for the duration of the round. Meanwhile, you could say that it is not in the opponents best interest to call the director, since that would likely 'wake up' the declarer. They would lose their advantage.

Ha! I wish I had thought of that at the table. As it was, I suppose I actually broke the law, because I did end up reminding partner of what the contract was, but only after an awkward pause. I almost said 'partner, please specify the specific suit and rank and I will play that card.' As for the rest, the defenders were apparently asleep. Partner was in 3NT and led their best suit, but they did not continue diamonds and take their tricks. Instead they switched back to the original suit that they led. You could say that I, as the dummy, broke the law, but that they failed to continue to play bridge, hence were not damaged.

We had a strange situation at our table in a sectional Swiss last weekend. The opponents are silent, and our side was bidding spades, but ended up in 3NT by my partner, so I was the dummy. Partner mistakenly assumed that he was declaring a 4 spade contract, and early on led a low diamond towards dummy's void, and said 'trump it'. Can the dummy remind partner that he was declaring 3NT, and that there were no trumps with which to ruff in the dummy? Perhaps this would fall under the dummy's right to prevent an irregularity by partner. Or does anybody feel like dummy should remain silent here, since by speaking up it would aid his partner in the play? There was a good natured difference of opinion at the table as to the specific rule that would apply in this situation. After the play ended (partner did make his contract!)we all laughed about the situation. If nobody spoke up to remind declarer of the contract, we may have sat there for hours, all the while declarer demanding that I trump the card, and with me sitting there and not doing as instructed.

If it was a large tournament then there might have been two, three, or even four directors, and any one of them could have purged the pairs who were not in BBO at that moment. Your director could have been telling you the truth. Keep in mind that in your particular tournament there was apparently a limit to the number of pairs allowed to join. In tournaments like those, it does indeed make good sense to purge those pairs who are not in BBO to make room for those pairs who they know are there and ready to play. Come early and stay there :)

Gweny makes a good point here. Certainly there is room for improvement with our volunteer hosts-- on a "job" like this, you never stop learning. Even fully certified tournament directors are always learning new things, so this isn't limited to just the volunteers on BBO. Perhaps it is too easy to forget that the people in question here are volunteers, not paid employees. The tournaments that they run aren't for masterpoints, and the games that they run are all free for the players. And for the most part I do think that the volunteers on BBO do a very good job. For every mistake or bad ruling, there are fifty good rulings that never get mentioned. I think that it is admirable that the volunteer hosts here have asked for further learning and guidance. In my opinion, this shows a lot about thier dedication to this game and to this site. I do hope that somebody is quick to take the volunteers up on their offer. Instead of complaining, step forward and become a part of the solution. We've already lost one excellent volunteer director due to these boards, and I'd hate to see others follow in his steps. It's far from "pleasant" when a volunteer comes to these boards and has to read constant complaints about how they are "incompetent". Instead of posting these things, why not lend a helping hand? I will say what Gweny and Mirjam have said: Put up or keep quiet.

Okay, I had one that REALLY got to me tonight :rolleyes: Player: I have asked over and over for an explanation of the 3 ♥ bid here, but neither of my opponents will explain! I'm not playing another card until I get a satisfactory answer. Me: Let me ask them-- perhaps they missed the query. (then I realize that the player making the complaint was the one who bid 3 ♥, not the opps!) Player: Time is running out-- please make them answer! Me: Sorry, but you yourself are the one who bid 3 ♥-- I don't think the opps have any useful information about a bid that YOU made. Play on please :rolleyes: Player: I don't understand. I clicked on 3 ♥ multiple times and by law they owe me an explanation! (another directors call comes in, but I push it to the side temporarily) Me: But YOU were the one to bid 3 ♥. It's highly unlikely that your opponents will be able to provide you with any useful information regarding your own bid. Your opponents can only answer questions about their own bids. Play on please. Player: Sorry! I forgot that I was the one who bid 3 ♥-- my mouse and keyboard are old. I need to replace them. (yet another directors call comes in) Me: Hope I have helped and that this solved your issue. Play on folks! I leave the table.... Then I get a whisper while I am in the lobby from this same lady: "Sorry, I just forgot that I was the one who bid that. I guess I'm just confused! But I still think that the opps could have answered me. If we don't finish this hand I think our side deserves an A+ since they held me up by not answering my questions in a timely manner." ARGH!

Having both played in and directed/co-directed regularly in some of the larger tournaments on this site and previously on another bridge site, I have decided to chime in on this issue. 1- Let's not forget that the original poster was not happy with having to wait too long before being allowed to advance to the next round. This is, on the surface, a reasonable/common concern. True, the post itself did not come across as exactly appreciative of the hard work and effort put forth by those who volunteer, but let's try to seperate that issue from the actual complaint. 2- Since our site is extremely "worldly", we cannot ever expect that every player will have a strong, fast connection and play at the same pace. This makes for slower play at some tables. No one format (clocked or otherwise) will change this fact. 3- Personally, as a player, I have played in many unclocked tournaments. I do not know how the idea that they are somehow "faster" than clocked tournaments came about. My experience has, in fact, been very much the opposite. Sometimes they are indeed faster, but many other times they can be shockingly slow. It's all chance, and usually has little to do with how fast you yourself play. 4- From both a player and directors point of view, I find that my day can be more accurately planned when the tournament is clocked. Yes, sometimes rounds can be extended two minutes, but that's about as bad as it gets-- not much of a difference. In general, most players are aware of the clock and make an attempt to finish playing in a timely manner. This helps. And remember, the directors here have lives too! ;-) 5- In the Fun Fishy tournament, both Gweny and I will indeed make adjustments for intentional slow play or when the result is obvious. But we both know that the show must go on, and that people have lives to lead. A very small handful of slow players will not stop the show. In general, our Late Fun Fishy is extremely timely and predictable, and I believe that the players appreciate this. 6- In clocked tournaments, all of the players finish at about the same time, and all are able to immediately see their results and rankings. Players appreciate this-- hey, bridge is a very competitive game! In unclocked tournaments-- especially those of meaningful size, you may have to wait QUITE a while to see your results. 7- There are many types of tournaments currently offered on BBO, and this goes on all around the clock. In fact, no other site offers more choices and more times as far as tournaments go. And let's not forget about the Total Points tournaments either-- they can be quite fun too! If a player prefers one style over another, then (s)he can simply choose to join those types of tournaments and avoid the others. 8- As another poster pointed out, let us not forget that we are all guests here when we are players. And as far as directors/co directors go, we are all volunteers. I think that this fact should never be forgotten. 9- I believe that, while every voice should be heard, we should listen closely to those that work the hardest. When a host (such as spwdo) has a suggestion, it is a suggestion based on vast experience. Handling large groups/directors calls is no easy task, and these directors are generally very wise. It's not easy finding good directors, much less those who are also able to handle large crowds. 10- Let us return to playing bridge and having fun! Somewhere along the line recently, some have lost track of this-- this is still a game, after all. We should be happy that we have been so fortunate as to have had so much recent growth. We should be thankful to have such a fine group of volunteers. As a whole, we make one heck of a team! 11- And finally, those that do little else other than complain will likely find themselves not taken seriously. This is human nature. Suggestions for improvements are great, and opinions about tournament formats can and should be varied. But for those who exclusively complain and disagree, it will become only too easy to learn to "not listen" to that person. And that's a shame, since one day they may come up with a truly great idea-- only to not be heard or else ignored.