epeeist

I am not so sure. Phone ringing, urgent visit to the toilet, answer the door, etc. There are many ways hesitations occur where the "offender" doesn't even have time to type "brb". While that's true in general, in this case the opponent specifically claimed "connection issues". If his connection was supposedly stuck for several minutes, yet he never got a red dot, I think a little suspicion may be justified. Perhaps a bit of a tangent, but is answering the phone, answering the door, or going to the bathroom usually (under all but the most unusual/unpleasant circumstances :o ) something one has to do so quickly that one can't type e.g. "brb phone"? [i'm leaving aside for now, and for another discussion sometime, the issue of whether one should join a tournament unless one can devote the time to it, I'm assuming a tournament in which the TD is okay with this behaviour and there's enough time (e.g. unclocked).] Except in case of e.g. fire or spilling a drink on the keyboard or carpet (have to mop up quickly) etc. I can think of very few circumstances in which one has to so urgently do something that one can't wait a few seconds to type a "brb" message. It takes what, all of 5 seconds? Say you're a really slow typist, 15 seconds. Is that so hard? Is the person at the door to tell you you've won a million dollars going to leave because you're not leaping over furniture to answer it and it takes you 40 seconds to answer the door instead of 30? Obviously, TDs can set their own rules, but this alleged excuse ("I couldn't type brb because the phone rang" :) ) seems ridiculous to me.

The software allows one to alert one's own bids. And explain one's own bids to the opponents (only) if necessary. Do any TDs here seriously require the bidder's PARTNER to alert (by table chat) and explain (likewise) bids in BBO tournaments? If not, you're violating laws 20 and 75C, if I recall correctly...it would be easy to state in tournament rules e.g. "Do NOT alert your own bids; only alert your partner's bids, using chat to the entire table, and likewise explain the partner's bid to the entire table if requested. Before the opening lead, if there was any misexplanation by one's partner of one's own bid it must be corrected and the TD called as in f2f bridge." It would be easy to state, but the consequences -- in time, annoyance, etc. -- of disallowing players from alerting their own bids would be great. There are enough problems with failing to adequately explain one's own bids on BBO, imagine how much worse it would be with explaining partner's bids! I see this as a somewhat similar situation, the software allowing a claim to be rejected and play to proceed is a matter of practicality. I'm sure there are other examples where, for practical or other good reasons, bridge as implemented on BBO arguably (or clearly?) violates the laws of bridge (and/or the laws of online bridge). Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the laws of bridge could suggest some... My point is, since some violations of the laws of bridge on BBO are already widely accepted for what seems (to me) to be good reasons (e.g. the prospect of self-alerts and explanations which would be invisible/inaudible to partner were not in contemplation of the law-makers), is the fact that something on BBO violates the laws of bridge that didn't have this form of bridge in mind always determinative? Even the online bridge laws are fairly "primitive" in many respects (how do you manage to forbid online players from using memory aids?! People may have a pile of books and their Internet browser open to a bridge site while playing, for all you know). As for it being contrary to the spirit (if not letter) of the rules to reject claims out of hand, isn't the point the laws are about the laws, not equity or the spirit of the laws? :P Glib remarks aside, I think it depends on the reason. I am comfortable with automatically rejecting claims from people who have in my personal experience deliberately (obviously, that's an inference) or negligently misclaimed against me frequently enough for me to make a profile note about it. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf, at some point you're justified in ignoring them, sure maybe eventually there really will be a wolf (valid claim), but they're just not trustworthy. I understand you may disagree.

I found the discussion of the problem with telling the players to play it out interesting, though I had some (mostly practical) concerns. For one thing, the default BBO position (from the help index, "claim" as well as how it works in the software) seems to be that one is entitled to reject claims and play out the hand. And since the non-claiming side sees all four hands after a rejected claim, it's essentially the same as being allowed to consult on the defence. However, if I understand this thread correctly, the opinion is that the TD is not allowed (not supposed to) to tell the players to play on. Thus, if declarer claims and defenders reject the claim, the declarer is entitled to refuse to play on, the TD has to make an adjusted score? How do you deal with (for instance) enough claims each round that the time required for the TD to analyze them exceeds the length of the round, every round? While TD calls relating to all sorts of other problems are also coming in... What about (possibly totally correct and adequate) explanations which are beyond the ability of the TD to analyze in a reasonable period of time? What if the explanation is understood by the defenders and TD but is beyond their skill to analyze? E.g. if someone writes explanations filled with terms like "devil's coup", "smother play", "vienna coup" etc. those might be part of a perfectly defined and adequate claim explanation -- which neither the defenders nor TD will understand without referring to bridge websites or the ACBL encyclopedia. As a player (I've only rarely TD'd on BBO, and not recently), I generally refuse a claim automatically (i.e. without trying to analyze it) and want to play on if either (1) my profile notes indicate that the claiming party has in the past misclaimed (either carelessly or fraudulently) or otherwise behaved in a manner to make their claims untrustworthy; or (2) if analyzing the claim is too complicated (for me) so that it would be much faster to play it out. Am I expected, as a player, to try to analyze the claim and if I can't call the TD to do so? If a player has a claim rejected by the opponents, are they entitled to sit there and refused to play on until the TD analyzes the hand and assigns an adjusted score? As for always requiring claim explanations, is that required when it's totally obvious? When there's one card left in each hand?! When there are two cards left in each hand, two trump in declarer's and none in any other hand? Etc.

There may be more, but from what you posted, I don't see any contradiction. Psychs are allowed, but agreements to psych are not. So for instance, one may happen to choose to psych, NV against V as dealer. Okay, no problem, psychs are permitted. But if one has an agreement (explicit or implicit) with one's partner that one SHOULD psych more often in those situations, or more often against weaker opponents, or [etc.] then you have an illegal agreement to psych. The two conditions you state therefore don't seem incompatible, I don't understand why you call the no-agreement policy illegal, am I missing something? More generally, as others have pointed out, without knowing details (e.g. what if the TD had only seen you play 4 times, and those happened to be 4 times you psyched?) it's hard to know whether the decision was subjectively wrong. It may have been wrong objectively (with a full complete knowledge of all facts), but it may have been subjectively correct (reasonable based on the information available at the time and given the time in which to reach a decision). Kind of like a sporting event, the need for officials to make calls quickly means that some will later be found to have been wrong. Doesn't necessarily mean the referee was wrong to make the decision he or she did, based on what the referee could perceive at the time. Also, even if the decision was subjectively wrong, given the need to decide things quickly -- whether in bridge or live sports -- a certain number of mistakes must be expected.

I don't undestand why you're dealing with things that can only happen in face-to-face bridge, not on BBO. On BBO, the hands are NOT all "face up" after a claim! To the perspective of the non-claiming side, they are, but that's presumbaly intended to benefit them (rough justice) if the other side has misclaimed. The claiming side (whether the defenders, or declarer), however, does NOT see each others hands when they claim, on BBO. Just like outside of claiming, if you're dummy, and see all 4 hands (if set that way), that's only you. The others do NOT see all 4 hands, only the dummy and their own.

The question seemed to be, what one should do. Not what one can get away with ("You can argue...this is rock-solid..."). Not that I agree one could "get away with" that argument, but even if one could, it would not make it right.

Online, if a faulty claim is made by the declarer, no harm to opps. Indeed, benefit to them, they can see each other's hands and thus (effectively) it's like allowing them to consult on defence, they can play cards to best advantage since see all hands. If fault claim made by a defender, no harm to declarer, since each defender will not see the other's hand (unlike face-to-face), only declarer sees all, and again, can simply play to his or her best advantage. Unless the fact that a claim made by one defender is somehow a signal to the other, but that seems rather tenuous. Thus, there is (1) no harm, and (2) potentially great benefit (if seeing cards makes a difference) to having an opponent make a faulty claim on BBO. So why the problem?

You suggest that if your p, an expert (I'll assume you mean a "real" expert) opens 1NT and you bid 2NT, you genuinely have no idea what your partner will think it means. I consider that highly, highly unlikely. I think that given those premises you suggest -- expert partner opening 1NT -- that you will EXPECT your partner to understand your 2NT response in a certain way. And that's how you should explain it if asked (or, if the way you expect p to understand it, makes it alertable, alert it). Of course, you can't know they'll understand, but you will expect they will. Even with a regular partner, I've seen vugraph with world-class players where a player's partner misunderstood their bid. Does the fact that misunderstanding is possible mean no alerts or explanations need be made? I'll note in passing that since BBO, unlike face-to-face bridge, is self-alerting, you have to read the Laws with that in mind. Returning to your example, if you honestly have no clue what your partner will understand a 2NT response as meaning, why did you bid it? If I were in the situation where I expected p would be clueless as to what my 2NT bid meant, I'd likely either pass 1NT or jump to 3NT. Now, how you expect your partner to understand it may depend on various things -- tournament (e.g. to state the obvious, a "sayc only" tournament or "wj2000 only" tournament or whatever), vulnerability, partner's flag and profile notes, etc. But given all that, it strains credulity to suggest that in the sequence 1NT - 2NT you have absolutely zero clue what your partner will think your 2NT bid meant. I'll concede there are certainly bids you could make with no implicit agreement. E.g. 1NT - 7 diamonds, "no agreement" is likely the correct explanation. But 1NT - 2NT "no agreement" with an expert partner?! :lol: If my partner opens 1NT and I respond 2NT, I expect my p to understand it a certain way. Most likely, would be something like "invitational, bid 3NT if you have a good hand". It would actually usually be more specific, e.g. if my p has "sayc" in his or her profile, since I do too, even if bidding with my p not discussed at all, the implicitly agreed meaning of my 2NT bid is 8-9 high card points, balanced hand. And if that's how I expect p to understand it, that's how I should explain it if opponents ask. Yes, I totally agree that some bids are genuinely "no agreement". But too many players seem to think that because they've never had a 20-minute discussion with their partner about bidding, that they're allowed to state "no agreement" all the time.

Um, because that's what you have to do? :D Replying also to your other post (without quoting), even in a partnership game, opps have an "advantage" in that they can ask and be told exactly what the bid means systemically, whereas one's partner may forget, or be tired, or whatever. The only difference between that an an indy is how likely a p will be to know. 90% vs. 75%? Either case it should be explained. Seriously, what's the alternative? Explanations to the table as a whole? Why not just allow table talk, then? Granted, in tournaments in which I know it's permitted (and when opps are not enemies or otherwise annoying) I'll give permission for opponents to e.g. explain that 4NT was rkcb 0314 or 1430 or the 2 heart bid over 1NT was a transfer or whatever, if they ask for permission first (I'll usually chat to the applicable opponent, "If OK with my P, you can explain"). But that's a choice I make. More seriously, let's say my opponents are ACOL bidders and my p has sayc in his or her profile; even if I'm guessing, I'll have a MUCH better idea what my p's bids mean than my opponents will. If my p refuses to explain his or her bids because I might not "know" what they mean, my opponents are being treated unfairly because I'm MUCH more likely to "guess" correctly what they mean. Of course an indy is not a pure partnership game, there's a lot of luck, but it can be fun. Part of that fun is sometimes deciding to make imperfect bids based on what you think your p will understand...of course, sometimes a knowledgeable partner is a disadvantage, e.g. bidding on after I jump to game... :) Let me give an example of an advantage which (according to an ACBL TD; I asked in private conversation, i.e. seeing if opponents were entitled to an adjustment, because I was unsure) was perfectly fair. One opponent bid 4NT (in a sequence in which it was blackwood) and I clicked for an explanation: normal blackwood. Their partner responded and I clicked for an explanation: RKCB 0314. I (and my p) KNEW there was a bidding misunderstanding, and the eventual slam contract was doubled (because we knew of the misunderstanding) and went down one because of missing aces. Sure, that can happen in an indy, but it's all part of the charm...

Warning: long response, and I'm not an expert. But I feel strongly about this topic. :rolleyes: This is a bit of a philosophical question. My own view is, if I expect my partner has a good chance to understand what I meant, we have an implicit agreement. Whether or not we've ever discussed it. Let's say I sub, don't discuss bidding for whatever reason (short time, lazy, tired, partner an enemy, whatever), and my partner opens 1NT. If their profile has a US flag, "sayc" in the "other" section, a "J" in the top left corner, and I reply with 2 clubs, I expect them to understand it as stayman and reply accordingly. 99% of the time I'll be correct. If my opponent asked what my bid meant (for whatever reason), am I allowed to say "no agreement" because p and I have never EXPLICITLY agreed to use sayc and thus stayman?! :blink: By contrast, let's say partner in an indy has "novice", "wj2000" and "no english" in their profile. They open one heart, I think we have a chance to make 3NT and bid it. We genuinely have no agreement, and if asked I will state that, I have no clue what my partner will think my bid meant. But these are extremes. Let's say partner (the first example, with sayc in profile) opens 1 heart and I jump to 4 clubs, intending it as a splinter bid. But again, never discussed. Some think this is explained as "no agreement". In one sense, they're correct since it was never discussed and there's a good chance in an indy that p will mess it up... :lol: But I think that if I make that bid I expect my partner to understand it, and thus am morally (if not ethically) obliged to explain it that way. For instance, if my partner is a "star" (though I think I've only been that lucky twice, in all the individuals I've played...), it would be in my view dishonest to explain a bid, which I expect them to understand, as "no agreement". There IS an agreement, just implicit, not explicit. Turning to the specific example, in an acbl tournament, I think the "default" bidding system is deemed to be sayc/2/1 unless agreed (and opponents told, explicitly or by cc) otherwise. Unless that happened here, there was a de facto partnership agreement that two clubs was strong, even if no discussion between the partners ever occurred. Thus, it seems like what pigpenz said, an improper psyche of an artificial bid. If, of course, the two club bidder didn't know what it meant, then they may not have psyched, but they violated the rules in another way (not disclosing use of a non-sayc or 2/1 system...).

Sorry to read this, I enjoyed your tournaments. I agree with the others in this thread. Too bad it would be against the rules, but if it weren't, if someone falsely accused me of scheduling tournaments to sabotage their pay tournaments, that would annoy me enough to start sabotaging them by hosting free tournaments of exactly the same format a few minutes ahead of theirs on any and all occasions... :)

Thanks for the quick info. Since I very rarely have connection problems, I don't think this will be a problem for me, but thank you for offering a "fix".

Hi, I was just curious whether this message, something like "BBO internal error 330, exit completely and relogin" could have been affected by my having a web browser open while BBO was running, or whether that was totally irrelevant? It happened during a tournament, right when opponent claimed, fortunately I got back before being subbed...

Read in the ACBL bridge magazine, I can't recall the author, and it's probably not new anyway, but: ASBAF (All Strange Bids Are Forcing) That's the full explanation. Remembering it helps especially when one's partner is more skilled and one is uncomfortable with/ignorant of cuebids, or splinters, or (whatever). You bid one spade and p jumps to 4 diamonds? Strange bid, it's forcing. If you know what it means, great. If not, it's a strange bid, and thus forcing, and you'll bid 4 spades. LHO bids one spade and p bids 2 spades? Strange bid, maybe you don't know Michaels or cuebids generally, but you know that unless RHO bids you have to bid. Etcetera. Only exception, if p's "strange" bid is 3NT, it might be to play (e.g. even if opps have found a suit fit, a stopper/double stopper may justify the bid...) EDIT: To avoid overlengthening this thread, I'm replying by edit. From what I've read (of more experienced players) and my own experience, making doubled contracts are generally worth a good score, at matchpoints or IMPs (unless you missed out on slam or something), and so redoubling a bid that's already doubled and worth game, is not to play? But I'll defer to others' expertise, and deleted the example I had given of 3NTXX.

Result stands. Unless, it is your practice (which I would agree with) that refusal to answer TD questions results in an automatic negative inference. I've had other TDs do that (once, I called TD, asked for NO adjustment, just warning to opps about repeated failures to correctly explain agreed meaning of bids -- but opps refused to reply to TD, so TD gave adjustment on principle, even though I hadn't asked for it). But unless failure to respond is a reason (was this the last board? failure to respond or signing off understandable then) I've had the unfortunate experience (mostly in individuals, but even in pairs) of having p pass in forcing situations. To t/o doubles or otherwise (not just in circumstances in which t/o double was converted to penalty double...some seem to have misunderstanding that they need 6 points to respond to a t/o double :rolleyes: ). Here, the doubled contract would still be less than game, and south has only 3 points. I can understand that at IMP rather than matchpoint scoring, south might decide that passing is best. I would disagree, but sympathize. As for north's t/o double, a bit odd but since it's the cheapest bid that (should!) force south to bid, it makes sense to me...

I don't know what you consider "a huge number", but I've certainly had my share of rejections. Part of it may be due to my profile description, which is designed to "weed out" players I would consider unfriendly. I change it periodically, but at various times it's said things like "I sometimes play when tired...you've been warned" or "post-hand criticism accepted, but I'll respond..." or "if you can't say hi and glp don't invite me" or the like. So in my case, I deliberately "encourage" rejections, in a way, because I don't want a silent unfriendly automaton as a partner -- if I did, I'd pay $3/month for GIB... :) Not perfect, but when I'm invited, it's usually with someone who is reasonably friendly and often who has a sense of humour, and I not infrequently make a new "friend". Also, like you I have a very simple bidding/carding description ("prefer sayc or 2/1 and std. carding"). If my p wants to specify dont or capp or rkcb (I usually want rkcb myself) or bergen raises or roman discards or 3/5 leads or whatever, I figure they can ask. However, I think some people, if they don't see a long list of conventions or carding agreements, figure someone is not really intermediate... I'd rather use my profile space soliciting friendly players with a sense of humour (examples above) than specifying every convention under the sun using abbreviations that half the time can't be understood or are too vague (e.g. "rkcb" without specifying 0314 or 1430 or "xfers" without being specific -- so if you're going to have to discuss it with partner anyway, why bother putting it in your profile?).

I've seen people, in situations like that which you describe, do something like lead the Q♦ to hand, overtaken by A♦, ruff low, and get overruffed by the last outstanding, higher trump like the 8 or something...their count of "3 heart tricks" included ruffing the queen of diamonds instead of just playing hearts... Not skillful, sure. But it happens. Sometimes people miscount and think there's no trump out, or aren't thinking, or just got back from a party, or misclick, or [etc.]. So if there's enough time, unless there is a clear, unequivocal explanation of the claim that I can easily and quickly follow ("squeeze" is not necessarily clear and unequivocal; "progressive trump squeeze" might be clear and unequivocal, but I wouldn't be able to quickly follow it :huh: ) I reject. In the hypothetical you present, unless time was extremely short (less than a minute) I'd reject -- with only 4 cards left, it would take less than a minute to play it out. It takes about as much time to make the claim, look at it, etc. than it would to just play the cards. I've sometimes had claims of a crossruff (after all outstanding trump drawn) rejected, no problem, I just played it out.

Though I rarely direct on BBO, I was thinking about this problem for when I direct again. When I schedule a tournament, I will turn off the "ignore enemy chat" feature. I will also state in the tournament description something like "If you think you've wrongly been excluded, send me a brief polite message." If someone sends me such a message and e.g. I can't remember why they're an enemy, my profile notes about them say nothing, I'll set them back to neutral. Once the tournament starts, I'll put "ignore enemies" back on, since everyone in the tournament will be at worst, neutral ("enemies" who sent me polite messages having been reset to neutral). So only for a brief time will I be receiving chat from enemies. So you can still, easily and simply, ban people by setting to "enemy". And they will still, when they see your tournament listed and before it starts, be able to request a change in status by explaining/asking/whatever ("Sorry for that thing three days ago when I stopped playing and ignored chat, I spilled boiling coffee in my lap and had to run to the shower immediately"). Edit: When I reset a former enemy to neutral (I mean generally, this has nothing to do with being a TD) I generally add a profile note "former enemy" or something. I don't want to be "burned" twice... :rolleyes:

I note first, you state "There had been ongoing argument between two pairs." But without more, the question seems silly, but not intended to be sarcastic. Anyway, if as a defender I received a question like that I'd probably reply something like "Make any claim you want, when I see your cards I'll decide". Or if I was annoyed "if you have a claim, make it, otherwise play". Unless maybe I was playing against a "star", I would make any opponent play it out for two reasons. First, the time it would take me to analyze the squeeze means it would probably be faster to play. Second, even if there was a squeeze who's to say that declarer is as skilled as he or she claims? If I were the declarer, and if I was capable of analyzing a squeeze on the opening lead, and if for some reason I was so certain that it would work or so short of time that I needed to claim, I wouldn't ask; I'd press the claim button and type in the explanation box "black suit squeeze" or whatever. So while the declarer's question seems odd, it doesn't seem, on its own, to be either rude (taunting) or inappropriate. Silly though, and a waste of time, the player should just claim, showing his or her cards.

That's happened to me once or twice (i.e. opps deliberately bid ridiculously, 7NT doubled by us redoubled by opponent). After my call, TD adjusted to ave+ for us, and either kicked out the "guilty" opponent (forcing p to get a sub) or kicked out both (I think one player bid 7NT, the other redoubled...), and added to future exclusion list (banned). Seems fair to me.

I agree the adjustment against you was unfair. I once kibitzed Fred Gitelman playing in one of BBO's online ACBL tournaments. He opened 1NT with a singleton honour in one suit. Opponent called the TD when he found out. TD correctly, in my view, ruled against the opponent. And not simply because of who was involved... :)

We're talking about online bridge here, not some serious moral quandary in which one may agonize over whether a utilitarian approach is justified. Kicking out someone, as inquiry noted, is not punitive; it's remedial (purpose is not to punish someone with a bad connection, but to fix the situation for all others in the tournament or at the table, in the case of MBC). If I have a connection problem, intermittent or otherwise, and can't fix it, I WANT to be kicked out. For the benefit of others. I don't want my p or opps to have to deal with having to think and play too quickly or request adjustments on multiple boards because it takes me extra time to bid and play because of intermittent "redness". If I'm connected enough to send a message to the TD, of course I will do so.

Full Disclosure, from the little I've tried it, doesn't seem to allow a meaning to be given to an initial pass. Though non-standard, would it be difficult for it to be possible for an opening pass to be assigned a meaning? Given possible future integration between Full Disclosure and e.g. Vugraph (which might have pairs using fert systems), perhaps the program should be changed now to allow for "opening pass" definitions? I've only encountered opponents using a forcing pass system once. They were VERY good about clearly explaining all their bids (or passes...). Indeed, they were so good about fair disclosure that even though the tournament had some bidding restrictions (e.g. didn't permit Polish club), the TD agreed they would be permitted to use a forcing pass system in future tournaments also... :P

(1) Did east have an obligation to alert? I think yes. If you think no, then stop. (2) Was there damage b/c of late alert (if late)? Yes, south could have doubled an artificial diamond bid to show interest in the suit. What did east say about when alert made? Did east say it was timely? There are additional complexities. Given artificial meaning of 1 club opening by west, I agree south should have been on guard for 1 diamond having an artificial meaning. But it gets a bit tiring to me (this isn't directed at you!) how every discussion about any bid seems to involve some opinions about how the non-offending side "should" have protected itself by asking what every bid meant. There's also the factor, that if east had had diamonds (e.g. kjt4) and received a request for an explanation (wouldn't know whether N or S assuming done by clicking on the bid), that would "alert" east to the fact that either N or S had an interest (presumably length) in the diamond suit. That is, it would have given extra undeserved information. So from south's view, clicking on the bid to request an explanation could actually give extra information to east about outstanding diamonds (that either N or S had length)! Similarly, if I have an ace, I will sometimes refuse to ask for explanation of whether opponents are using normal or rkc blackwood (especially in an individual where they may be unsure). Because if I click on the bid for an explanation, that's as good as telling the opponent that there's an outstanding ace. And therefore I alert my own blackwood bids, else I'd be a hypocrite... :lol:

The message is automatically sent by BBO if there are no subs when the TD requests one, there is no option to include # boards remaining. jb Yes, but can't the TD independently send a message to lobby chat (I know that as a BIL member I get club messages requesting subs all the time)? Something like "Please sub in tournament #XXX, only 4 boards left" or whatever?