epeeist

I too must complain, at the misinformation. "Roast Foie Gras"? Please! You do not roast foie gras, you sear it quickly! And you serve it with something, perhaps caramelized onion and a glass of Sauternes... :D

For you to prefer face-to-face bridge, fine, that's your opinion. Some other people enjoy playing bridge online. I can decide at a moment's notice to play bridge, can play for a short or long time, can play late at night if suffering from insomnia, can take a break while working at home, whatever. I know some people playing on BBO who for e.g. medical or other issues, don't find going to their local club all that feasible. Others may be in remote locations or even simply not like their local bridge club(s). I tend to prefer to play in pay tournaments on BBO, in part to support the site, but sometimes I feel like playing in a free tournament. Indeed, given the discussion in this thread I obtained TD permission and ran my first tournament a short time past. Unfortunately, there were no adjustment requests so I was unable to argue implied partnership understandings or Law 75C or anything of the sort... :rolleyes:

I'm assuming you cut and paste this, so it's not a typo. Unless the directions are mixed up -- and the rest of the questions suggest not, given that North asked about 3♠ -- it was EAST, who made the bid that should have been alerted, that called the TD. So there seems to be something missing from the story, problems previous board or rounds also, or maybe insults or refusal to answer questions or something? I replaced the names of the players by NSEW, the name of the TD by TD, the name of the host by HOST and my name by KIB. So EAST was angry about the remarks of NORTH and called TD. It was the first board of the tournament. Nothing happened before (at least during this tournament). jw At least with what appeared publicly, east seems to have had a chip on his/her shoulder, to get angry with those remarks by north and calling TD when simply asked about failure to alert, deciding to leave tournament, etc. East might well have been rude (in private conversation) to TD or refused to answer questions? Either of which could lead to adjusted result. Just speculating.

I'm assuming you cut and paste this, so it's not a typo. Unless the directions are mixed up -- and the rest of the questions suggest not, given that North asked about 3♠ -- it was EAST, who made the bid that should have been alerted, that called the TD. So there seems to be something missing from the story, problems previous board or rounds also, or maybe insults or refusal to answer questions or something?

I actually find this topic interesting, and -- if my view is wrong -- want to know about it, so... ;) I am wondering why, since the original question relates to a BBO online tournament, everyone is talking about deposits not being refunded etc. which is immaterial. It's not a face-to-face situation involving an appeal committee. Law 75C (of the generally applicable WBF Laws of Bridge) states that a partner (in the system where one's partner explains the bid) in reply to an opponent's inquiry "shall disclose all special information conveyed to him..." It doesn't say "shall disclose all special information conveyed to him, but only if the opponents really push for information, and the opponents have to be suspicious of so-called explanations and know to ask for more...". It says "shall disclose". Especially when read with Law 20F which allows asking for a "full explanation" of the opponents' bidding (including calls which could have been, but weren't, made!) the explanation was clearly not a sufficient explanation. I note also, footnote 25 on page 58-59 of the WBF Laws relating to online bridge -- which gives examples both of mistaken explanation (infraction) and mistaken bid (no infraction) clearly states on page 59 that "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws/onlinelaws.pdf It also notes, in the example used to more fully explain the difference, that opponents are entitled to an "accurate description". Not that opponents have to be on their guard, be suspicious that the explanation given for a bid is inaccurate, etc. When they ask for an explanation, they are entitled to a full and accurate one. Clicking on an alerted bid in BBO requests an explanation. If a bidder volunteers information about an alerted bid, to save time, it seems obvious that the information must be accurate notwithstanding the lack of a question. Otherwise, a bidder could deliberately misdescribe alerted bids, only answering honestly if and only if opponents follow up by asking... As for "damage" decisions about whether to e.g. bid a game, or small slam, or grand slam, are sometimes made (especially in NT) based on matters of a point or two. E.g. p opens 1NT (15-17), with 8 HCP I bid 2NT, inviting p to bid 3NT with 17, pass with 15, use judgment based on 16. Is it so unbelievable that in deciding whether to double 3NT, a difference of a couple of points in what you think the opponents have would affect the decision?! :) Whether or not the double was bad, the misdescription arguably contributed to it. And not being an appeal committee situation where a hypothetical situation can be given to experts to determine whether or not there was damage, that seems to suggest damage.

In an indy, if both I and my p for a round has "sayc" in our profiles, even if neither of us types anything, we still have a de facto systemic agreement. Then, if I explain a bid I explain it according to sayc. Even if you disagree with that form of implicit agreement, some indys, I've typed "sayc w/your profile fine p" or "2/1 fine p" or "my cc already open p, looks like it matches your profile" or something which explicitly sets an agreement on the bidding system with a few words. Similarly, two players could easily agree to use Polish club, either by both having it in their profiles or with a few words at the start of the round. Given that situation, if the explanation of a 1♣ opening as 10-11 HCP doesn't fall in the range for what the TD knows is the "normal" Polish club description, but a 13-point hand would, then there seems to have probably been a misdescription -- accidental or not -- contrary to the de facto partnership agreement. So if 10-11 HCP is default for Polish club (I don't think it is) or one of the players had it in his or her profile or cc, then they might have agreed. However, I'm skeptical, as I think you are, that they could or would have agreed on "10-11 HCP" as the range for an opening 1♣ in the Polish club system, and thus think it was a misdescription.

Again no. "I assume E would understand 1♣ to be 11-13", it reads. A TD is not supposed to assume anything. He/she is supposed to state the facts, nothing more. Roland If a TD is very, very suspicious that west mistyped, and thus misdescribed the bid (and didn't correct misdescription), or misalerted, what then? Lacking a confession, one does nothing? I'm assuming, given the TD's comments, that there was evidence/reason to believe (knowledge of the Polish club system, or comments by east or west, or whatever) that west knew that east would interpret the opening as 11-13 HCP, but described it as 10-11. Whether by accident (mistyping) or not, that was a misdescription by west. Which is very different from a bid that e.g. fools one's PARTNER as well as the opponents. If in an individual, my opponents' profiles both show "sayc" and one of them bids 1NT and explains it when questioned as "12-14 HCP" and they later turn up with 16 HCP, is suspicion not justified? An adjustment if we were damaged by e.g. overcalling and going down for a big penalty? Or is absolute, total proof consisting of a confession or analysis of historical hands necessary to confirm misdescription of a bid? Mind you, knowing sayc I'd be suspicious of a "12-14" description in an individual, but that's because I know something about it. When it comes to descriptions of Polish club or WJ2000 or whatever systems, I have to rely on opponent descriptions. The "okay" situation you're talking about is when there's no reason to be suspicious. E.g. if p and I have "sayc" in our profiles, and I open 1NT having 19 HCP and alert it as 15-17, and get a good result, great for me and opps have no grounds to complain because my p was fooled also.

These are two questions (actually based on something that has happened to opponents, and I wondered "could I complain if that happened to me..."). 1. In an individual, normally you get a "bad" partner, fine, live with it. But what if partner apparently deliberately decides to be "weird" e.g. opens 7NT with 10 points or something, redoubles it when it comes around, would it be possible to award an adjusted score (if the TD thought appropriate) to his/her partner? Or does the same adjustment (if any) have to apply to both members of a "partnership"? I had something happen like this once (opponents bid and redoubled a totally ridiculous 7NT contract which distorted the results scored at IMPs, p and I both I called TD, they were both booted because pairs, but could certainly happen in an individual also). 2. I've sometimes felt that in fairness (and to avoid skewed results) sometimes limited table talk to a sub should be permitted. Once I specifically asked a TD in an ACBL tournament if I could tell the (opposing) sub something in the interests of fairness. I was told not, which I thought unfair, but of course I complied. East (for the sake of example) before being subbed, had obviously deliberately established winners in a suit against our NT contract. Then connection problem, sub comes in, no reason to know that suit is good (even seeing last trick played doesn't always help), leads something else and we make our contract. Shouldn't either (1) the non-subbed p be able to ask the TD to tell the sub something (TD could then exercise discretion, decide whether or not to say anything), or (2) if the result on a table with a sub seems "out of whack" with the results at other tables, an adjusted result be assigned? I'm sure that one of these days I'll have a sub come in to replace my partner, who won't know e.g. that I already led the AK in a suit and his/her Q is good, and will underlead it hoping to find me with the A or K... ;) or in bidding won't know that p and I had agreed to use Texas transfers or whatever, and I'll get a terrible result (well, not that I don't get them anyway... <_< ).

Since the last time one of these what is advanced/expert threads started, I rechecked what BBO itself (through help, user profile, settings) says. Advanced: "Someone who has been consistently successful in clubs or minor tournaments". Expert: "Someone who as enjoyed success in major national tournaments" See: http://www.bridgebase.com/help/3/lobby.html then click settings, then user profile, then skill level. That is, one should self-assess oneself based on ACTUAL PERFORMANCE IN TOURNAMENTS, NOT A SELF-ASSESSMENT OF HOW "GOOD" ONE IS :D Basing it on actual performance -- as an honest person will do, in accord with the guidelines -- would mean that the vast majority of "advanced" and "expert" players should downgrade their skill level. B) If someone can recognize and execute trump coups and criss-cross squeezes and the like, and has bidding systems that can pinpoint virtually every card, but for whatever reason does not enjoy consistent success in clubs or minor tournaments, THEY ARE NOT ADVANCED. Maybe they can't maintain concentration, or don't have right IMP or matchpoint strategy (e.g. don't risk contract for overtricks when they should at matchpoints?) or whatever, but results are what matters. Outside BBO -- i.e. in "real life" I still think, the only true measure of bridge expertise is SUCCESS. Which is what I think the BBO self-applied ratings are intended to recognize, and which the stars (which require from what I've read international success to be granted), and the numerical/JQKA profile ratings for play in certain tournaments do recognize. That is, consistency in good performances. Anyone who rates themselves otherwise is fooling themselves and others. I'm sure there are some expert bridge analysts or authors, who may be expert in their field, but unless they can play like experts they are not expert bridge PLAYERS. If I were consistently successful in online BBO tournaments (I'd call those minor tournaments) I'd upgrade my profile to advanced. As it is, I'm only inconsistently successful... :lol: If I were like some so-called BBO "experts", the fact that I once earned a fraction of a red point in the only NABC I ever entered would mean I had enjoyed enjoyed "success in major national tournaments" and could upgrade my skill level... :lol:

Your question brought to mind what I think is a related question, in a tournament that has a "no psyche" rule and also no undos, what happens if someone misclicks in the bidding (or claims a misclick) and gets a good result for that reason? In a "normal" tournament, no problem if I misclick I say nothing and if asked what the bid means, explain to opps what the bid "should" mean (i.e. I don't say I misclicked). In a no-psyche tournament that allows undos in bidding, again no problem because I can ask for undo. But in a no psyche, no undo tournament, what then? Is one obligated to announce that one's bid, which can't be undone, was a misclick, in order to avoid violating the "no psyche" rule?! :rolleyes: Oh, and though I'm not a TD, my perspective as a player on your question is, f2f bridge has revokes, accidental exposed cards, cards improperly replaced in slots, dropped on floor, etc. All of those problems are eliminated by BBO. The slight problem of misclicking seems a small price to pay for the elimination of all those other problems. When I misclick, I just accept it. Annoying, but not frequent enough for me to want undos enabled. Oh, and I disagree with the previous poster saying if you allow undos it's up to the players. If I recall correctly, the tournaments I've played in which allowed undos in the play set a policy e.g. "reasonable undos must be granted" which meant that players could complain to TD if a reasonable undo request wasn't granted (e.g. to take an extreme example with Ax of trump you misclick and ruff in 4th seat with ace against opponent small slam...). If you're going to allow undos in a tournament, it seems to me you have to state and enforce a policy regarding them.

Unlike some other posters, I'm intermediate. With that warning to you out of the way... :P With a regular partner, using SAYC or 2/1, I assume 1NT rebid denies 4 spades in the sequence you indicated and shows 12-14 HCP (12 possible if 5332 distribution, otherwise 13-14 HCP). So 1♠ rebid does not necessarily deny a balanced hand. As others have noted, wanting to "hog" the hand (sometimes for good reasons, e.g. have Kx stopper), or thinking it more important to show strength of hand with NT rebid than distribution with a bad 4-card spade suit, etc. means that sometimes I may bid 1NT even with a 4-card spade suit. But I expect my p to be fooled as well as opps, into thinking I don't have a 4-card spade suit. Also, given the sequence you indicate I'd want a diamond stopper to rebid 1NT. I don't open 2-card club suits (I'd open 1♦ instead with 4432) so that part of your question doesn't apply to me. As for the choice between showing 4-card ♥ support immediately or bidding 4-card spade suit with 4432, depending on vulnerability and whether IMPs or matchpoints I'd bid the spade suit and hearts later (depending on p's response), assuming I have the sort of minimum 4432 13-14 HCP hand you're discussing (if p passes 1♠ it may not be best contract, but we almost certainly don't have game). Somewhat related, one of the articles in the most recent (I received it yesterday) copy of the ACBL "Bridge Bulletin" discusses the great divide: between those who open 1NT holding a 5-card major and those who don't...

This is about two separate problems which seem to have happened in ACBL tourneys recently: lack of directors and (possible problem, maybe just me) a sub issue. Hopefully raising both matters doesn't make my post less clear. :P On Friday after midnight (so technically Saturday morning) I logged on to BBO -- it was about 12:06. I noticed that there were two red "sitouts" in the ACBL individual, so I registered as a substitute. Soon one of the players (who had no partner, i.e. at a "sitout" table) sent a message to the lobby "adv sub needed for indy ACBL tourney, pls join as sub". I inquired of the only "ACBL" profile online at the time whether or not non-advanced "intermediate" players such as myself would be useful as subs, as otherwise I wouldn't bother, but was informed that that TD was dealing with the pairs, not the individual. So there seems to have been no ACBL TD for the individual, which is a problem in itself. I had entered an ACBL individual earlier in the week with no TD, and had had to send a message to a yellow before an "ACBL" TD eventually came online. I didn't complain at the time because I thought it was an isolated incident. However, for this particular tournament I wasn't an entrant so I suppose it's up to a player to complain. At about 12:15 there were still two red "sitouts" so I guess no one chose me as a sub for 9 minutes. That's fine, my ego is healthy enough to deal with rejection :lol: but I'm wondering whether it was fair to OTHERS at the table for people to let 9 or 10 minutes run down waiting for the "perfect" partner to register as a sub. Especially when they were waiting for someone who would only be their p for a round. If there was a TD who let that happen, fine. If not, it's an example of why TDs are needed even if people can choose their own subs -- so that opponents can, if need be, object to the failure to choose a sub for a lengthy period of time. I've done that myself on occasion, when an opponent lets several minutes go by without choosing a sub.

Today, I registered as a sub in a tournament (BIL Aces, if it matters). I then proceeded to read the tournament rules. When I received the popup asking me to sub, and clicked yes, I subbed in the tournament and could play cards etc. normally. However, the menu bar at the bottom of the screen stayed the same as it had been while reading the rules (the page forward/back options, etc.). It did not change to the menu bar that's "normal" for a tournament (convention card, undo request, claim, etc.). Indeed, I was unable to claim for this reason and had to play out a hand. When the round ended (not the board, the round) the menu bar correctly reset to the tournament type (convention card, undo, claim etc. buttons all present).

I actually appreciate the broadcasts about when a vugraph is restarting. I sometimes log in, or what have you, between sessions, or am not aware of the exact time, etc. and the broadcast helps me start watching at the start of a set of boards. I'm not always watching vugraph when one session happens to end, and I'm sure many others aren't either. As for those who are disturbed by broadcasts, it's a couple of messages at most every few hours, if people can't handle those brief broadcast announcements how do they handle the beeps etc. when a card is played? :lol: I also don't mind tournament announcement broadcasts, but if something had to be eliminated, keep the vugraph and get rid of those other broadcasts. I agree more vugraph is better (subject to cost/server problems). If it "competes" with tournaments, so what? I doubt it does, but tournaments already can compete with each other, one can have free tournaments competing with pay, the opportunity to kibitz someone "competes" with entering a pay tourney, etc. As for vugraph, not that I WANT to pay, but if e.g. a 5 cent fee per spectator were charged, money raised covering costs/honoraria for commentators/vugraph operators/whatever, I don't think I'd mind unduly -- but I also wouldn't watch vugraph as often. And some people are in circumstances where arranging for online payment is a problem. Perhaps a compromise might be to request (voluntary) payment of some fee (5 or 10 cents?) for watching vugraph, all those who choose to pay can enter a special tournament with small prize for the winner or alternatively for a randomly chosen entrant (vis-a-vis BIL "Aces" tournament)? (BBO$, partnering a star in a future tournament, something like that) No idea how easy or hard that would be to implement (voluntary payment and maintaining custom list of such people for tournament). Or a private club for those paying, with an expert discussing/dissecting some of the most interesting deals of the session after each vugraph session was over?

I also would hate to have it split. If, for technical reasons it has to be, then I think separating by function -- e.g. tournaments, teams, clubs, vugraph as has been suggested -- would be better than separating by language or region. One of the nice things about BBO (well, sometimes...depends upon whether or not there's a language in common :lol: ) is interacting with people from different parts of the world. If it had to be separated, at least a separation by function would preserve some of that interaction.

The example given by the original poster sounds like a situation in which there was, genuinely, no partnership agreement -- one's partner would be put to a guess, entirely fair for it to be likewise for the opponents. However, in other situations, "Partnership Agreement" has to, in my humble opinion, include implicit partnership agreements, not just what has been explicitly discussed or agreed to. Meaning, I think that ethically, if you reasonably expect your partner to know what your bid means, you have to explain it that way. And especially if they "field" your bid, bidding as if they understood it, I don't think "no agreement" is valid. Otherwise, e.g. in an individual where you haven't discussed bidding, EVERY bid would be "no agreement" -- your 1NT opening, partner's 2 heart response, your 2 spade rebid, etc. Your partner expected you to understand what the 2 heart bid meant, and you did, even though there was no explicit partnership agreement. Obviously, that's a pretty obvious example. A better one might be, if my partner in a round of an individual tournament were a (genuine) expert or star, I would expect him or her to know/infer that my jump to 4 diamonds in response to 1 spade was a splinter. Even if there was NO explicit agreement, since I reasonably expect my partner to understand my bid, I think I have to alert it and explain it, if asked as if there were an explicit agreement.

Very kind of you, but the bottom line is that the opponents are not entitled to all that info. "Weak (2)", "pre-emptive" is adequate. You are not supposed to write a novel about what you may hold! The only thing the TD has to do is to find out what the partnership agreement is. If that is "weak 2", that is the end of it. If I have agreed to play a 12-14 NT and I open 1NT with a 16 count, I do not need the TD to tell me that I should have opened 1 of a suit. I am entitled to open 1NT as I see fit, so long as it is not based upon a partnership understanding. Roland I'm glad I'm kind... Looking at a (paper) copy of the ACBL "Standard Yellow Card" Convention Card, it describes 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ bids as "weak" and "5 to 11 HCP Normally a good 6 card suit". That's on the convention card itself. Which is what I expect my partner to understand it as, and what, in a face-to-face game, my opponents would be able to read off our convention card. If asked for an explanation, am I not, therefore, obliged to give this same information (which is essentially what my fuller explanation, in response to a request for info, gave)? If not, that suggests that in an online ACBL game the duty of disclosure is less than in a face-to-face game.

Actually, having had a request for a fuller explanation of one of my own "weak 2" bids in a tournament has caused me to think more charitably of the TD. That is, the explanation of the bid as "preemptive" was not necessarily clear, as another poster noted. Especially since they asked for an explanation, I think you had to give a better description. I will generally alert weak 2 bids as just that, "weak". But if asked for an explanation, I specify e.g. "usu. 5-11HCP 6+♥" for a 2♥ opening. Sometimes what I have is different, but that's the partnership agreement and I expect my partner to be as surprised as the opponents if I don't have what I should... :lol: Also, the TD may have thought there was a partnership agreement, or understanding, or unconscious inference by your p, whatever, that your 2♦ bid might be different from the norm (for one thing, your p, with 3-card support for a 6-card preempt in a minor and two aces didn't raise to 3♦, or considering it was matchpoints try NT despite ♥ situation, etc.) Not saying he/she should have, just another bit of information which might have made it appear to the TD that you underexplained/misexplained your bid. Also, so many other factors, how well or poorly you explained yourself to TD, what your convention card said, etc. For all you know, your p might have sent a private message to the TD which made the TD's ruling correct (insulting TD, or stating that your bid was understood as strong e.g. "I am compelled by ethics to admit, having played with JSilver before, that at matchpoints with all vulnerable I expected the 3rd seat 2♦ opening to have a 5-card ♦ suit and opening values...). A bit extreme, but you get the idea... :)

I'm surprised by the ruling. Especially given the discussion in another thread about whether 1NT bids may have a singleton or void, etc. To the best of my recollection, I've only had one occasion to seriously disagree with an ACBL TD ruling, and at the time I was asked by Gweny to send her (privately) the name of the TD. I would suggest you send a private message to the "yellow" ACBL. THe ACBL TDs deal with many tournaments, and both for your own sake and others' this error should be corrected. I'm assuming, of course, that it was an error and everything happened exactly as presented here, no other things took place/were asked/etc.... :rolleyes:

Just to be clear, I prefer kibitzer-allowed tournaments, but let me play devil's advocate: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While I enjoy kibitzing, and hope it continues to be available, why should my "right" to observe govern? Especially when I'm not paying anything for the privilege (the only money BBO gets from me directly is from my entering pay tournaments, and indirectly, I'll probably buy some of the company's CD products this year, but that's irrelevant to the point). Reducing the potential for cheating is one reason for barring kibitzers, but it's only one reason. "Just because I feel like it" is perfectly fine. I might not like it, would seek to persuade otherwise, etc. but it's fine. Some players might very well want a break from being watched. I know that feeling from when I'm playing atrociously at the last table to finish in a tournament with dozens of kibitzers... :angry: Some partnerships, especially (genuine) expert partnerships, might be practising new systems or conventions, or what have you, and not appreciate being watched while they make mistakes hashing them out. There are private clubs, private tables, whatever, and it seems that only when stars are involved do people complain -- because they can't watch them for free. If you've ever set a table to disallow kibitzers (or require permission to kibitz), or knowingly joined such, or joined a private club, you've denied others the "right" to watch you. Shouldn't everyone, regardless of his or her expertise, have that same right of privacy? If there's such a demand for kibitzing, would you pay for the privilege? Many experts are professionals, who charge for their teaching time. If watching them is such a privilege, perhaps they should receive $BBO from kibitzers. But again, only if they are willing to be watched. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if this has been discussed before or would be easy to implement, but often when considering whether or not to sub in a tournament it would be helpful to know what board a particular table was on. Obviously, if I kibitz to check this, then I can't sub (whether or not the software would allow it, ethically, I can't). If moving the cursor over a table in a tournament could display e.g. "Board 9" (or whatever) without actually clicking to kibitz at the table, I don't think that would give inappropriate information. But that, together with the already-accessible tournament description would enable potential subs to guesstimate whether or not they have time to sub.

I have a quibble with one of your examples, needing 10 seconds to play a singleton. I don't think taking 10 seconds to play a singleton is cheating -- under your definition or otherwise -- if the player usually takes e.g. 5-15 seconds to play a card. Then it's just normal tempo. I attempt to play at a consistent tempo; meaning that whether I am playing a singleton, or from a longer suit, I take a few seconds. For suits with choices, I plan ahead what I will play if the suit is led so that, again, I can play at a consistent tempo. This is to avoid giving extra information to either my opponent or my partner. Of course, sometimes there are situations where I have to think, but I try to think while play is going on as much as possible to avoid giving information by delays.

If undos are to be permitted in ACBL tournaments, then there would probably have to be a rule that reasonable (immediately asked for, and in the case of a played card no card yet played by next opponent) undos "must" be granted (call TD if in doubt). Otherwise, whether or not one was granted permission for an undo would vary from opponent to opponent which would be (or would be perceived as) unfair. Although I am normally be inclined to grant an undo, I admit that if I were playing against a rude opponent, I would find it hard to be gracious -- unless there were a rule that reasonable undos would have to be granted. Yes, there are other solutions/aids (e.g. confirmation of bid/card necessary in tournament, delay before bid "final" or card played visible to others) but those would require software changes (as opposed merely to a rule change ;) ). The availability of undos might also help in those annoying situations where one makes a bid before an opponent has alerted his or her preceding bid. All that said, I don't see a big need for undos in ACBL tournaments (that may be a selfish view, I rarely misclick and if I do, hey it's only $1). I think it might create more problems if undos were available. Also, though less attractive, someone could always switch to the "classic" view to help prevent miscarding, at least. And of course, if undos were available, one would lose a convenient excuse for atrocious bids and plays... ("Sorry p, I must have misclicked") :)

Your comment about people not caring as it is a non pay tournament bothers me! One of the reasons I have started running tournaments is in an attempt to help keep free tournaments running where there is not tolerance of deliberate slow play, non existent and inadequate explanations of alerts, rude players, and my pet hate - kibitzers are banned! (etc,etc). Perhaps I am wearing rose colored glasses, I will read the other post on the subject. Do people really not care?!! :) I was being somewhat self-deprecating. I do care, and inadequate explanations (or failure to alert) is my biggest pet peeve after rudeness. Indeed, I played in at least one of your recent tournaments based on its description. B)