epeeist

I actually had a situation (as a player, not TD) in a normal (psyches allowed) tournament. I think the quickest, fairest answer is, the TD should adjust to what the likely result would have been if the opponents had been informed the bid was a psyche. My experience was, I misclicked a 2♣ opening. Since I know that psyches of artificial bids like a strong 2♣ opening aren't permitted, I sent private chat to the director to ask if I should alert my opponents to the misclick, or say nothing. The TD told the opponents. Of course, because of the delay in my making the inquiry the opponents didn't get told until after the opening lead. But generally, I think that the TD's approach was correct in dealing with an illegal psyche (not that I intended it as such, it was a misclick, but the EFFECT was of an illegal psyche). So similarly, in adjusting in a "no psyche" tournament, I would as TD ask myself "what would the likely result -- both in bidding and play -- have been if the opponents had been informed that the bid was a psyche?" and adjust accordingly.

Isn't it also possible that the TD misclicked, e.g. intended to remove the opponent you complained of but removed the wrong person? It's been a while since I TD'd on BBO unfortunately, so I can't recall how likely or unlikely a mistaken removal (i.e. the wrong person at a table) would be.

Sorry, I may have been unclear. I agree it's a slippery slope, but from your comments you are taking my question as relating to opinion of opponents which is not what I meant. My question related to one's partner (who was e.g. an opponent in a PREVIOUS round). And the duty to alert opponents to "extra" information about one's partner which may amount to an "understanding" (in effect). For instance, let's say "X" is my opponent in round 1. I form an impression of his bidding and play that X is overly aggressive (i.e. bids too high and is not skilled enough to make a good play for the overbid contract). Two rounds later, X is now my partner. I will take into account what I know of X. Am I obliged to alert opponents to a "partnership understanding"? That e.g. I will not raise preemptive bids by X, nor raise invitational bids to game, because I think X is overaggressive?

I thought this was sufficiently different from my other post on ethics in individual tournaments to warrant a new topic. With a regular partner, one may have bidding understandings, express or implied, to which the opponents should be alerted to (e.g. partner psyches frequently, or whatever). With an individual partner, I not infrequently find my partner is someone who was an opponent a previous round and I base my bidding and/or defense in part on my impression from that previous round. For instance, maybe we've agreed SAYC but I noted p was a timid bidder while an opponent so I jump to game instead of inviting or whatever. Maybe I noted that despite having agreed to a particular signalling method my partner messed it up in a previous round with their then-partner. Is there any obligation to alert opponents to this information I am using to affect my decisions? I can see honest reporting being deemed insulting (e.g. private chat to opponents "My p was an opponent of mine in an earlier round, and bid, and played, atrociously, so my bidding will take that into account... ;) ). Also, one sometimes finds oneself playing with a partner in an indy who is NOT a regular partner by any means, but who one has profile notes on (e.g. I might have a partner with a profile note, possibly made months prior, "NOT an expert, passed cuebid in opponent suit!"). Unfortunately that's a real example, not a hypothetical one... :lol: During bidding and defence in an individual tournament, I will take into account such "extraneous" information. If I think my partner is a bad bidder because of their bidding while an opponent in an earlier round, or overly timid, or overly aggressive, or whatever. I've never thought there was any ethical obligation to alert opponents to this "extra" information about one's partner in an individual -- but is there one?

I'm referring to those tournaments in which one's approximate IMP scores for each round are visible in the movie -- so one has a very good idea of how one is doing, IMP-wise. And I've certainly been in the position where, in the last round, I KNOW from the IMP score that e.g. a hard to reach/make slam will probably give me enough IMPs to place well, but a "normal" game will not. So I disagree with your suggestion/implication that playing (bidding) normally all the time is the best thing, results-wise. One sometimes knows, given the movie which shows IMPs, that bidding normally (or making the percentage play which everyone will, or whatever) will not give a good enough result. Isn't the rational choice in such a situation to "shoot"? With respect to unfairness to partner, I tend to agree with you, but then is it ethical at the start of the round when choosing bidding system to chat e.g.: "P, let's use SAYC with conventions as in your profile and standard carding; plus I have bad results so far and want to be aggressive to try and pick up some IMPs." and the response is "That's okay with me, we'll use RKC 0314 and I too need a big result to place well so we'll both 'shoot' if the opportunity arises. Redoubles will be to play, not SOS, etc." Is there any ethical objection to discussing at the start of the round when clarifying system and carding (it would be public of course so that opponents would be aware) one's results in the tournament thus far with partner to see if a more aggressive/shooting approach is okay with both?

A post by pigpenz in the TD Director's forum (the thread about irrational bids) got me thinking. In a pairs tournament scored at IMPs, I have sometimes "shot" for a good result in the last round. Rarely, and in moderation, e.g. redoubling a doubled contract which I think there's a decent chance to make instead of passing it, etc. Partners have generally been understanding/agreed with the logic whether or not it worked. It was my understanding that so long as the "shooting" is not irrational, and is infrequent, in the last round etc. it is ethical (if this is wrong, please correct me). But is "shooting" in an individual tournament ethical? Is one obliged to be conservative -- despite needing a good IMP result -- because it might hurt one's partner to "shoot" for a good result in the last round?

Thanks for all the feedback. Though I would tend to agree with steve's rule referred to by inquiry in respect of always (except when over NT bid by partner) treating 4NT as blackwood, all absolute rules admit of exception (or should that be, almost all absolute rules admit of exception? :rolleyes: ). In this case I thought -- rightly or wrongly -- that given 3NT had been a signoff bid (that's what I thought, anyway), we were unlikely to have slam (based on my own hand). And if as some suggest here my 4♦ bid had suggested slam interest to partner, then I had made a mistake from which the best recovery was to pass 4NT.

Actually, my question is more specific, whether in a specific bidding sequence 4NT was Blackwood. Individual tournament scored at matchpoints, I think P and I were vulnerable. Agreed with p to use SAYC. No hands shown because I don't think it's relevant. Me: 1 ♥ LHO: 2 ♣ P: 3NT RHO: Pass Me: 4 ♦ LHO: Pass P: 4NT All Pass So I had shown opening points, LHO overcalled at the 2-level, and P bid 3NT. I interpreted that as a "stop bidding" bid. However, because of my distribution (5-5 in ♥ and ♦) I bid 4 ♦. Thinking that gave P choice of 4♥ or 5♦. So when P bid 4NT, I assumed that was to play, not Blackwood. Feel free to criticize anything else about my bidding :unsure: but my main concern is, was my assumption that 4NT wasn't Blackwood "wrong"?

If you say "phone" or "toilet" after your partner made his decision, he may still have been influenced by your hesitation. But you can avoid putting partner under ethical pressure by saying "phone" or "toilet" before the delay, whether you're actually having a phone call or you need to think about what to bid. Of course, if that habit becomes known, your phone breaks and toilet breaks will put partner under ethical pressure. Many tournaments specify no table-talk. Saying "phone" or "toilet" to the table at large is table-talk. Indeed, for the sake of argument, someone who was prone to cheat could agree with a partner that "phone" or "toilet" meant something. I've sometimes explained to my OPPONENTS in private chat (i.e. by way of apology) what the delay was, but not to the table as a whole until the hand is over when I'll apologize to my partner if there was an unusually long delay. Technically, "glp" or "typ" or "wdp" (i.e. when the hand is over and cards for the next hand have appeared) is table-talk that could have a secret agreed-upon meaning ("I'll type 'wdp' with a bad hand, 'WDP' with a good hand") but I'm not such a stickler that I refuse to state "wdp" nor call the director when my opponents make such statements in violation of the no table-talk rule. :) As for the delay of 40 seconds, online, it's not the delay that is in issue, it is the partner's behaviour in possible acting on UI from that delay. E.g. let's say partner usually always takes 10 seconds for every bid. But one hand, passes instantly after every opponent bid. If I infer that because of the instant passing my partner has a terrible hand (i.e. not just pass-worthy, but 0 points) I'm acting on UI -- even though there's been no delay (rather, lack of delay) and even though it would probably be impossible to prove or decide the issue for the TD. Similarly, it matters not whether or not the 40-second delay was reasonable, or accidental, or explained by "phone" or "toilet" comment before partner made a bid. If that partner ACTED on UI from the delay then (even if the information was "wrong") the partner has behaved unethically. Of course, then you run the risk of penalizing all creative/unusual bids because one must have been acting on UI...

YES, THE PROCESS IS FLAWED! As for your "point" 1, read the facts? Okay: "The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen." That's what has been reported as the facts. That's it. What East (and West) claimed to have seen. My entire argument is, and no slight to this particular EW, but in GENERAL, why should one pair's accusation just be believed and the denial by the other pair not be believed? Additional (non-controversial, i.e. no disagreement) information was what cards were played (i.e. that the play was anti-percentage) and what Buratti said in his defense. What Buratti said was not an admission, but the committee considered it inculpatory -- essentially, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation. How nice. If Buratti had said "How dare you accuse me of cheating, I will say nothing" would that have also been considered inculpatory? Failure to provide a reasonable explanation? Others in this thread with far greater skill than I have suggested that the play was arguably not unreasonable for a team (thinking) it needed a big result. Let me ask you a question. If you were accused of cheating because say you dropped a singleton king with an ace, with no witnesses except for you and the 3 other bridge players, and despite your denial an "expert" committee decided you cheated since your explanation was deficient, effectively ending your bridge career, would you happily accept the result? Or would you consider the process had been unfair? As for the expertise of the committeee, read e.g. an NABC casebook -- you'll find expert comments on the expert decisions of the committee ranging from full agreement to wondering how the committee could have been so idiotic. And have you ever disagreed with ANY decision ever made, in history, of the U.S. Supreme Court (or House of Lords in its judicial capacity, or whatever is appropriate for your country)? Assuming you ever have disagreed, why are you assuming that a panel of bridge experts by contrast is somehow magically incapable of error? You seem incapable of reading all the facts presented so far in this case as well as being able to read and understand my posts. Good Grief. 1) What you say is simply not the whole truth and even close to all the facts in this case made public so far, good grief. 2) My post pointly used the phrase fatally flawed process not flawed. 3) Yes, if the supreme court and the other institutions make decisions on such flimsy evidence as you state here is the full complete public case than those institutions are idiots but of course that is not what i said if you could read my posts and understand them. To disagree with a well reasoned and thought out decision is one issue, saying it is based on basically no reasoning, evidence and thought as you do here makes the process an idiotic one. 4) To repeat if the opp's and committees make decisions based on your set of facts then the entire process is deeply and fatally flawed. I see no such decision here. 5) I respect anyones well thought disagreement to a committee decision but you are not close to presenting all the public facts. 6) Assuming all the public facts you may or maynot agree with the committees decision OK. All that does is reinforce my previous posts and the questions I raised. 7) The suggestions that this was a one time momentary on the spot cheat are illogical. Both partners had the same thought at the same moment? Both partners understood what information needed to be passed and how to pass it? Logic dictates all this takes more than a one moment and one thought to successfully understand what information is needed, gather the information and pass it to partner and for partner to fully understand the coded information without prior practice. 8) Please do not take of any the above to say I agree or disagree with the decision only that the standing process was used to best effect and that the opp and committee feel justified with their decision. My view is based upon what officially has been stated as what the committee considered. That's it. The link to the report was provided by both uday and another poster. My view is not based upon public speculation or innuendo about LB. Whether these are "public facts" or not, the committee decision should have been based only on what facts were before it. If the committee considered anything else, the decision should have so stated. If you have any link to any authoritative source -- not speculation about what LB might have done at the Cavendish Pairs, or applause by others when the decision at Tenerife was announced -- indicating that the committee considered anything beyond what was described in the press release, please post a link to it. Lastly, assuming arguendo your allegation that I am unable to read and understand your posts is correct, then I submit the fault is not mine, the reader's, but rather yours, the author's. I note also, your statement "What you say is simply not the whole truth and even close to all the facts in this case made public so far, good grief." To me, that seems perilously close to an accusation of deliberate falsehood on my part. I suggest you moderate your language. If I have not stated all the facts, call me mistaken, and state what those facts are and post a link to an authoritative source. Do not accuse me of prevarication.

Sure, a description that TD playing in the subject line (to avoid yellows wasting their time) sounds like a good idea. However, players would still fail to read it...I've played in e.g. "Goulash" tournaments with that word in the title, and found (seriously) players after the hand stating "unusual distribution" to which I reply "well, it is goulash", and they reply "Oops, didn't even notice the title..." :o Which is very different from someone e.g. not knowing what the word "goulash" means. However, the playing TD problem is simply one specific example of the broader problem of people NOT READING THE %*#( DESCRIPTION (or rules)! :angry: Or, in some cases I suppose not understanding the language in which the tournament is described, which is still annoying. The problem is not playing TDs, it's people who don't read that, entering, running into problems and calling yellows, wasting their (yellows) time. I know, I know, nothing new that people don't read, but even someone more patient than me would be annoyed when e.g. in an SAYC ONLY tournament opponents started discussing using wj05 or something, I told them "this tournament is SAYC only" and one opponent said "I don't know SAYC". Though I did find it amusing when one opponent said to me privately after the bidding was over, while dummy, "p's 2♠ bid shows 6+ spades whether in SAYC or not", I replied "that's not what his explanation of the bid said". :lol:

Thanks for the link. Just in case anyone else goes to the link now, it will start playing another day. So scroll down in the list of programs on the right to the "PM" show, click on that, click on "Tuesday", then when Tuesday's show starts playing forward to the appropriate time as indicated (apparently programs remain available for 7 days).

YES, THE PROCESS IS FLAWED! As for your "point" 1, read the facts? Okay: "The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen." That's what has been reported as the facts. That's it. What East (and West) claimed to have seen. My entire argument is, and no slight to this particular EW, but in GENERAL, why should one pair's accusation just be believed and the denial by the other pair not be believed? Additional (non-controversial, i.e. no disagreement) information was what cards were played (i.e. that the play was anti-percentage) and what Buratti said in his defense. What Buratti said was not an admission, but the committee considered it inculpatory -- essentially, his failure to provide a reasonable explanation. How nice. If Buratti had said "How dare you accuse me of cheating, I will say nothing" would that have also been considered inculpatory? Failure to provide a reasonable explanation? Others in this thread with far greater skill than I have suggested that the play was arguably not unreasonable for a team (thinking) it needed a big result. Let me ask you a question. If you were accused of cheating because say you dropped a singleton king with an ace, with no witnesses except for you and the 3 other bridge players, and despite your denial an "expert" committee decided you cheated since your explanation was deficient, effectively ending your bridge career, would you happily accept the result? Or would you consider the process had been unfair? As for the expertise of the committeee, read e.g. an NABC casebook -- you'll find expert comments on the expert decisions of the committee ranging from full agreement to wondering how the committee could have been so idiotic. And have you ever disagreed with ANY decision ever made, in history, of the U.S. Supreme Court (or House of Lords in its judicial capacity, or whatever is appropriate for your country)? Assuming you ever have disagreed, why are you assuming that a panel of bridge experts by contrast is somehow magically incapable of error?

Even someone who totally believes EW and believes NS are probably cheaters should still be concerned. EW accused NS of cheating. Only evidence was what EW said and the fact that S made an anti-percentage play. That's it. Read the "facts" and "opinion" section of either the press release or the bulletin uday earlier posted a link to. Look at it the other way. Let's say on another hand E had made an anti-percentage play. NS (Lanzarotti-Buratti) accused them of cheating. Only evidence was what NS said and that E made an anti-percentage play. Since it was an anti-percentage play, by definition E would have no "legitimate" reason for making the play! Would everyone here who agrees with the decision be happy if the EW Israelis had been punished based on a simple accusation by Lanzarotti-Buratti? Why are the EW team automatically credible and LB not? My point is, that I consider it dangerous and unfair for a very serious cheating accusation to be accepted based only on what the players say. Because then you get into the situation where anytime such an accusation is made the judgment of the committee will be based upon the reputation (deserved or not) of the players involved! Anyone playing against LB can show each other their cards if they want with impunity because, hey, who's going to believe an accusation by LB? As for the court analogy, in court testimony is upon oath or affirmation. And if one lies and that is later discovered one may be prosecuted for perjury. Unlike the situation with telling an appeals committee what you think happened. For the reasons others have explained better, I consider the notion that making the "wrong" play is automatically suspect ridiculous. Is Zia guilty because he bids "bad" 3NT contracts and makes them? I also haven't heard any explanation, WERE there other witnesses? Kibitzers, vugraph operator, anyone? If so, a fair process would have heard from them. If not, see my concerns above.

Regardless of whether or not the redouble should have been alerted, the 2♣ bid was alerted as "forced". That presumably means, forced by the redouble. If in that situation NS both chose not to inquire of west what the redouble meant I can't possible see how there was any damage to NS. I'll totally agree that the redouble should have been alerted. But UNLESS North had a credible argument he would have bid immediately over the redouble if it had correctly been explained and the failure to do so somehow led to missing out on 3NT (etc.) I can't see how ANY damage was caused, regardless of whether or not an alert should have been made.

Thanks for posting the link to the report in the Tenerife bulletin. It seems to me EW accused NS of cheating. NS denied. Appeals committee agreed with EW because they didn't like NS explanation for why J♦ played. Does this mean, whenever ANY pair makes an anti-percentage play, their opponents may accuse them of cheating and unless a "good" explanation is given that will be upheld?! :blink: Even assuming EW believed NS to be cheating, that doesn't necessarily mean they were. Even if the committee believed NS to be cheating, I think it entirely wrong and unfair to make a decision simply on the basis "EW accused you of cheating and your reason for playing the diamonds that way was not rational" [my paraphrasing] The committee's reasons say EW believed information was passed and suggested a possible means. NS gave "unconvincing" reasons which were deemed to be "self-incriminating" (the reasons are in the bulletin linked to and don't seem all that self-incriminating, unless you mean, they may have been irrational?). Are bridge players required to be robots who always make the "correct" play? And correctly deduce whether there opponents are likely to be in the same slam thus justifying an anti-percentage play?! Or are they permitted to sometimes make wrong or irrational or anti-percentage plays and get a "lucky" result? Go with a gut feeling? Play the Ace and fortunately drop a singleton king or the like? Mistakenly think the opponents may be in the same slam? Aside from the fact that there may be rational reasons to make anti-percentage plays as others have noted (e.g. you expect opponents to be in same slam and need a swing). One of Buratti's comments were that diamonds were always badly divided in the tournament so he expected them to be 1-3. Now, that may be irrational but so what? If a player carries a rabbit's foot or four-leaf clover will they be punished for being irrational?! The message here seems to be, if like Buratti and Lanzarotti you have a bad reputation, you better never, ever, make an anti-percentage play. No matter what you feel, no matter how tired you are and difficult it may be to make the correct percentage decision. Even a momentary impulse like to play the jack of diamonds after thinking a while, that's wrong, having given into a moment's impulse and played the jack you should have treated it as an exposed card and tried to make the "right" play instead...etc. :D I like playing blackjack, upon rare occasion I'll make the "wrong" decision just based on a gut feeling (like, I hesitate to admit it, I once split tens -- but it won B) ). It's wrong, and irrational. May the casino then refuse to pay me because to make such a wrong or irrational anti-percentage play which happens to win on one occasion I must be cheating?! If you're going to punish NS for cheating, I think in fairness you need some evidence of cheating other than "EW believed they cheated and gave a possible explanation, and S play was the wrong play and his reasons unconvincing unless he had UI" [paraphrased]. Weren't there other witnesses? I mean, if you're going to punish them, ask the vugraph operator etc. what he or she saw. I don't think that an appeals committee, hearing only from EW and NS, was the proper forum for dealing with a disputed accusation of cheating (if there had been an admission, sure). What this decision says is that ANYONE playing against Buratti-Lanzarotti should note any situation in which the "wrong" play is made, and then accuse them of cheating. Please note, I agree it's quite possible that NS did cheat. But decisions regarding such serious allegations of cheating should not be made on a "EW said - NS said" basis!!

There seems to be a bit of a mismatch between the title of this thread, "the idiot passes" and the phrasing in the original post, "what do you think of my pass...". So I assume, given the identity of the poster, that sceptic was not the one who passed the 2♣ bid (unless by a misclick :P ). I also assume the bidding system was one in which 2♣ was strong and forcing. Those speculations aside, of course I disagree with the pass EXCEPT if there is other information that might be relevant. Is it the last board in the round of a "total points" tournament in which NS either have a comfortable lead so that it doesn't matter if 2♣ is set? Or contrariwise do NS need fewer than 90 points to win? Then passing the bid might make sense. Even in a "normal" situation, the passer might have reason to believe that the 2♣ bidder mistakenly thinks all 2-level bids are weak because of prior experience with that bidder as a partner, etc. (if so is there an ethical duty to send private chat to opponents that they should ask p about the bid which may be nonstandard?). How I react (after hand over) will depend on p's profile. Novice or beginner I'll be firm but friendly, explaining why it was wrong to pass ("P, in the system we're using, you MUST respond to my bid even if you have zero points -- I could easily have game in my own hand or be void in clubs or the like..."). If an intermediate or better partner passed like this, unless they say after the hand "sorry misclick" or something, I would immediately set them to "enemy". Not only would I, I did, on the only occasion it happened to me... :huh:

It's a little bit ridiculous. I disagree. East called TD himself to prove to the opps, that West's 1♠ can't be treated as a psychic - as many confirmed here - instead of arguing with the opponents. I admire that kind behaviour at the table. And he deserves to be punished for wrong TD call ?! And what deserves NS for their poor bidding, playing etc ? 60% instead of 0% ? And justice for all ... ? Let's say this is the hypothetical chat: North: "I thought you used 5-card majors. Wasn't 1♠ on a 4-card suit a psyche?" East: "How dare you accuse my partner, I'm calling the director." North: "What? Why? I just asked you a question!" [TD called and arrives] TD: "What's the problem here?" East: "I called you because opponents said my partner's bid was an improper psyche". North: "I merely ASKED if the bid was a psyche. I don't understand why you were called, I just asked a question. I wasn't sure it was a psyche, that's why I asked the opponents. I didn't think there was any need to call you." TD: "East, why did you call me?" East: "So you can tell North the bid wasn't a psyche. Merely asking the question was a gross impertinence on his part. How dare he ask us such a question! I thought it best to call you before it degenerated into an argument." North: "What argument? I just asked a question!" TD: "East, stop wasting my time." Calling the TD simply because someone asks you a question is not behaviour to be admired, and it wastes the director's time. If there is a rude question or insult, or repetitive complaints about something that's different. But I really don't understand why east should be praised for wasting the director's time. Nor why NS should be criticized. It's possible to criticize the TD's decision without praising east for calling the TD nor criticizing NS when they were not the ones who "called" the TD to complain! Now, given the description of east as kind, it probably was more like "Oh, good question, let me call the TD to ask". Friendlier, but still a waste of time.

Yes, attention should be drawn to an irregularity. But I thought the whole point was, there WAS no irregularity. So then no duty on EW to call -- indeed, the fact of calling could be taken as admission that there had been an irregularity... Or, if you mean, TD should be called when there's an allegation of an irregularity, fine. But "murmuring" about whether the bid was psychic, as the original post put it, doesn't seem to me to be alleging an irregularity. Nor is it "arguing" as you put it. It's just asking a question. An impertinent or wrong question perhaps, but just a question about the bidding. If someone asks "Was that 1♠ bid psychic? I thought this tournament didn't allow psychics" the correct response is "no". Or if you choose to be friendly you might explain about bridge judgment. NOT immediately call the TD! If I were in EW situation, I would say "no, not psychic" and if NS continued, "if you disagree, call the TD". Leave it up to them, don't jump the gun. The frivolous call was by EW. Unfair to blame NS in this situation for simply ASKING.

As you stated, it was EW who called the TD themselves. NOT NS. If, in post-play chat, I ask the opponents about their bid, maybe I'm wrongly suspicious, but it's not wrong to ask. Even sarcasm "Interesting bid there with only 4 spades" or whatever, sure I'm wrong, but I haven't been insulting or complained to the TD. EW could have been silent, or replied, or whatever. Instead, east chose to call the director. So if anyone should be punished for a wrong TD call, it's EW. Who were "punished", with an adjustment against them... :D It was EW who called the TD "against themselves" so to speak. Might the TD have perceived that as a tacit admission by east that west's bid was questionable? To take an extreme hypothetical example, let's say a TD is called to a table and a player says "My bad, I made a psychic bid in violation of the rules by bidding a 4-card major, opponents deserve an adjustment". Now, I think that's silly/stupid, but I probably won't spend too much time in a free tournament arguing with someone who wants to blame him or herself.

Sometimes when kibitzing a friend in a tournament I want to send a mail message (i.e. for the friend to read later, after the tournament is over, e.g. a comment on a specific board). The default for left-clicking on a name e.g. in the lobby is to send chat; would it be difficult for the default for left-clicking on a name in someone in a no-chat situation be to mail instead of chat? Or to have "send mail" as a right-click option? I realize, of course, I can simply use the "chat" button and type in the name in the "mail" field, which is what I do now. I'm just lazy enough to want a shortcut :D

Since you asked what factors, I'll list them (not necessarily in order): 1. My hand. 2. Scoring and vulnerability. Are we vulnerable at IMPs, important not to miss out on possible game, so may treat as t/o, etc. What are the likely/possible scores if I bid or pass? If I bid and p's bid was for penalty, how much do I think we'll lose; if I pass and p's bid was for t/o how much do I think we'll lose? 3. Partner's and opponents' profiles (i.e. based on what I think skills are, do I think opponent made the bid expecting to make it or as a sacrifice, what does partner say skill is, etc.). For instance, if partner rates him or herself as "novice" I'll assume the double is for penalties. I'm sure there are other factors, like the mood I'm in... :rolleyes:

Tournament players on BBO are not all experts (notwithstanding what their profiles say... :lol: ) -- why so hard on EW and why expect them to make all sorts of inferences as to what south's bid must mean? If it's alertable it's alertable, and if not it's not. Whether or not W SHOULD have been able to figure out what it meant. Putting myself in W place, after 4♣ by south, what do I do? If S alerts it as lead-directing, I would be much more likely to pass (leaving it up to partner or see whether opponents end up in something one of us would rather double for penalties). If unalerted, I'm much more likely to bid 4♠. Because I assume south's bid either shows great ♣ to bid at the 4-level, and/or tolerance for ♦. 4♠ may or may not be a bad bid; but to automatically assume that west, being (arguably) a bad bidder, would still have bid 4♠ after an alert and explanation of south's 4♣ bid as lead-directing is silly. So it's not unreasonable IMO for EW to feel damaged (i.e. he/she would have bid differently if south's bid had been alerted) and call TD. Whether or not they are ultimately held to have been right, they were not wrong to call. And as a (near-novice) TD myself, if I were in that situation where north KNEW what south's bid meant and told me, and south ranted (i.e. was rude), you think I'm not going to adjust?! :lol:

Since, according to the initial post North when asked SAID the 4♣ bid was lead-directing and south merely ranted, is it not reasonable for the TD to have inferred there was a partnership understanding that 4♣ was lead-directing?! North did not say "I guessed given my length South had a void" or the like, North said unequivocally it was lead-directing.

If you double, LHO bids 3S. I'll stick my intermediate oar in... Still there despite that qualification? :lol: Since we might have game, don't I want something forcing? Double is forcing and (at least as far as I know in SAYC or 2/1, singleton ♥ not a problem because 16+ points). Given that, as you said, LHO bids 3!s over the double, that actually makes it easier. If partner is very weak, he or she will pass. Or if stronger bid 3NT with a ♠ stopper, or bid a suit. Sure, 4♥ wouldn't be great, but I'd assume 4♥ would show a better hand (or much more distributional) than doubling 3♠ (or passing, of course) so that 4♥ should be six-card suit as previous poster suggested, or good cards in the suit so that 4NT should be safe? (I'm assuming 4NT shouldn't be blackwood in this sort of sequence, but rather a retreat, since from partner's perspective I should be cuebidding or have already cuebid ♠ if I had slam interest, but maybe I'm all wrong there :) ). Not sure what a double of 3♠ by partner would show but absent agreement I'd assume (given the vulnerability and that given 2♠ bid and raise by LHO, and Qxx in my own hand) that it was NOT for penalty but some sort of vague strength-showing "not sure where to be" bid and I'd then bid 3NT (rightsiding the contract -- I'm assuming/hoping that AK♠ both in RHO or LHO has Ax or Kx doubleton).