spiralscan

OK thanks, that helps.

I apologize, the essence of the post was correct but the bidding was wrong. I've attached the bidding and full deal as follows: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=skq92hda4cajt9732&w=sajt6h932d765c865&e=s7hakq875dkq83cq4&s=s8543hjt64djt92ck]399|300|Scoring: IMP Bidding goes: 1♣, 4♥, P, P, 5♣, P, P, 5♥, DBL ALL PASS[/hv] The one club opener took over 60 seconds to make a decision that should have been made to either double or bid on within some 15 to 20 seconds. This was ruled as a connection issue. The player did not red dot whatsoever and was talking freely.

I've played in many tourneys where tempo issues are perceived to be connection issues when brought to the attention of the director. However all the while the party in question has been able to talk etc easily. In a recent example, South opened 1♥ and West now bids 4♣. North raises to 4♥ and all pass to W♣ who takes a 60 second tank (or longer). The director is summoned before South takes a call and the situation is explained and told to carry on. South chooses to bid 5♥ and West immediately doubles for down 2. As it turned out neither could make either contract, West had a CLEAR 5♣ call as they were void in ♥. :blink: The director ruled this was not a tempo issue but that West could have had a connection problem???????? I could see 20 seconds for deciding but 60???????? Interestingly enough had he simply bid 5c immediately South may not bid 5♥

♦OK let's turn this around a bit. I'm thinking that this person basically gave me unuthorized information. He gave me a lead directing double which told me to lead spades. So what happened? I got in and dropped the King of spades from my KJ holding during the play, - would I have done this without a lead directing double? I seriously doubt it. I don't have a problem with psyches and in fact am inclined to make them myself when the timing is right. I realize they have inherant risks and here on BBO at least you can be subject to a lot of discontent by the masses for making one. However all that aside, at what point does a psyche actually damage the opps because someone took advantage? This example to me is an example where I inadvertently got UI. On the other hand - should I just ignore the UI i got and let 5 ♦ make? How can this be handled - obviously td's are not equipped to deal with matters like this.

The other day in an tournament with an unknown partner rated to be a "world class player" The two opponents are beginners. I opened 1♣ holding the following hand: ♠KJ ♥KQ82 ♦97 ♣KQJT LHO overcalled 1♦ and partner now bid 1♥, RHO raised to 2♦. I liked the 1♥ bid a lot and upgraded my hand to 3♥. LHO now bids 3♠ and my partner doubles and the bid is of course pulled to diamonds. I now bid 4♥ and rho doubles. I liked my chances at 4h and felt anything they bid could go for a telephone number so redoubled. LHO now bid 5d, partner doubled and RHO xx'd!!!! Too much doubling and redoubling going on don't you think?? It turned out that my partner psyched the 1♥ bid. My question is this? How ethical is it to double for lead direction AND for penalties AFTER making a psyche. For the record 5♦ did go down and we don't have anything. The full deal: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=skjhkq82d97ckqjt3&w=s73hat765djt86ca6&e=sq9862hjdak543c98&s=sat54h943dq2c7542]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Why is it that all 4 hands are tabled when a claim is rejected? It seems to me that it would be more correct to have only the declarer's hand tabled as in regular tournament play. Any comments on this?

Would it be possible to change the software so that when a non-alerted bid is questioned it is not shown as alerted? The current method automatically alerts the bid the moment someone questions any bid which makes it very difficult for TD's to determine the sequence of events if there is a problem. A lot of people still forget to make timely alerts or make alerts at all and by the time the question is made the auction may actually be over. When the TD comes, the bid shows as alerted and explained causing a lot of frustration to the non-offending sides (especially the person in the direct seat of the non-alerting bidder who has probably taken the bid natural and thus had no reason to bid or possibly made a bad double) This would prevent untimely alerts and prevent the communication of UI. You could then say with clear definition if something is misexplained. Hopefully the TD would also be able to see if a bid has been queried and where.

:) ♦I'm firmly of the opinion that both players AND subs need some protection. The player against getting a terrible sub and the sub against getting a miserable player who may have already gone through 2 or more subs! I'd like to see a way for the software to allow a sub to gracefully bow out when they find out a person is totally incompatible (without the current abandon penalty) or conversely if a player requests a sub and finds out that sub is totally incompetent - NOT be forced to play with that person for the remainder of the tournament and be allowed to either replace the player or exit themselves. Perhaps this is too much for directors to handle. With the use of the current "I need a Sub for my Partner Button", if the player is automatically replaced with NO penalty then perhaps some tempers could be saved. I know I myself would appreciate such a feature. I realize that often no subs are available and this would put pressure on the ever dwindling sub list but when subs ARE available (or if perhaps you could request a known person to come and sub) this would certainly be helpful. Abusers on both sides could be tracked easily enough by keeping track of hand records. Perhaps the software could be written in such a way that it logged the hand record etc to both BBO AND to the player's PC thereby not leaving the entire onus on BBO to track abusers. As an example, I'll give an event where I was called in to sub........ I held the following hand: ♠ x ♥akqT9 ♦xx ♣jt9xx I hear 2spades weak on my right. With my known partnership, this is an easy 3s cue (slip michaels or strong takeout) bid but with a total unknown it's a lot harder. Do I pass and wait developments and risk a possible loss of game, or risk a possible penalty x. Since we were nv vs v i deided the latter and bid 3♥ LHO passed and partner immediately bid 6♦. I'm now stuck. Do i pass, bid 6[H] or try 7♣, I tryed 7♣ which was doubled by LHO. and passed. As it turned out 7 diamonds was on and had my partner bid slower we would have found the proper grand. I asked partner why he didn't bid 4[D] to force and he left the table. Such is the life of a sub. I eventually found another sub but due to the fact profiles are not shown I ended up with someone who played a method completely alien to mine (strong 2's). The first board I passed holding a decent hand again: ♠AJTX ♥KQTxx ♦xx ♣xx I passed in first seat, and 3♣ was opened in 2nd seat. Partner bids 3♦, pass to me and I bid 3♥. Partner now rebids his diamonds and everyone passes. Dummy comes down...... and partner 3 gorgeous hearts and 4 lovely spades. We not only missed game but we were cold for 6 hearts or 6 spades. I really wanted out and rather than be frustrated any longer I took one of my abandons. But I don't feel that I as the sub that was punished by BOTH players should have been the one punished. Any comments? :lol:

What recourse do BBO members have when they voluntarily disconnect on the sole premise that they are being harassed by a fellow member and/or when the TD is summoned to address an active ethics concern which concludes with the TD failing to adequately protect the harassed member? Why should BBO enact a blanket policy of temporarily revoking members privileges for a defined period of time when the members reason for disconnecting in the first place is not only valid, sufficient, and or necessary? Does BBO honestly expect members who play in tournaments to weather harassment AND directors' woefully substandard of the Laws of the game? It is one thing to say that online bridge is a supposedly more relaxed and thusly less regulated form of the game. It also however cannot expect to function in a manner appropriate to the decorum and expected social norms that the game demands of us all if the very people who are offering the interface coupled with with the eager volunteers who offer us these tourneys, if they decide to arbitrarily assign "punishments" on the fait accompli assumption that members prematurely leave BBO for reasons that are not concretely determined. And what about those households that have more than one active BBO member in it? When one of those members has been suspended the other member quite unfairly has to bear the same level of punishment for actions that the other member simply not commit. This issue alone I have a serious concern --- A suspension of a computer's IP does not adequately protect the legitimate wants, desires, and in some cases, needs of the non-offending member. Does BBO honestly expect to address the problem of premature disconnections under the misguided premise that BBO can now determine whether or not the disconnection was deliberate or accidental? I have serious concerns that for members who use broadband if they have a sudden loss of signal frequency (in my case once a week or more), that they be banned because of a network issue, and not because that member decided to quit BBO for the day because their partner did something they did not like. A much better solution is to bring into the BBO client a button and/or tool that would allow members to report infrigements on the rules of the site - to report it in real time along with enough lines of chat (let's say 40) from the reporting member's client to facilitate the rapid investigation by admins to remove the offending member in an expeditious manner. This button should also summon a TD to the table as a priority Director's call. I am discouraged that BBO has decided to take this course of action. I also feel however that with a clearer understanding of the jurisprudent use of suspensions that it would send an effective message to the membership that certain infractions will be dealt with quickly, calmly and professionally. It is my most sincere hope that something good can come out of this, because quite frankly, I am very upset that people who leave under good auspices so that no further duress will occur are the ones being sanctioned unfairly. I do not feel that simply reporting the issue to UDAY is enough - we as human beings are emotional creatures and if a member is upset then that member should be allowed with some tolerance to disconnect when he or she feels that their enjoyment of the game is being infringed upon.

Not to throw another wrinkle in to this pot but there are a LOT of accusations that go on that are unfounded as some have so eloquently stated. My partner and I play a very artificial strong club system and although we alert everything necessary have been accused more than once of "cheating" simply because our opponents felt that the bids should not be allowed. In fact, all bids were thoroughly explained and we exercise a full disclosure policy. There has been a lot of harassment over this to us and probably others...... so I believe there is a fine line between policing and harassment. I would hate to see players harassed that are simply playing their game. Implementing a cheater button such as UDAY suggests could harm individuals who are playing an artificial system since many basic players simply don't understand complex agreements. Nor would they understand complex defensive systems and might automatically think cheating when no cheating exists! My partner and I have worked very hard at hammering out our agreements!

Would agree that this should only take place in tournaments but also that if it's implmented perhaps it would be best if dummy could not see all the cards. I was recently playing in a tournament and received an average minus for not completing because dummy said CLAIM when there was an obvious trick still out if declarer played it wrong. The play was not at all obvious and required a finesse to make - therefore I would be in support of such a move during tournament play.