david_c

This happened to me today: The lead was in dummy and I decided to play a club to my queen. I was looking at dummy's ♣3. I pointed vaguely in the direction of that card and said, "Small heart please." Then partner started to reach for a card and for a moment I couldn't understand why he was reaching for the red cards on the left rather than the black cards on the right. Now that is an inadvertent designation. It only applies to cards that have been named. If you play a card by placing it on the table or suchlike, then it can't be retracted even if you feel it got there inadvertently.

I don't think it's just logistics, it's about whether you stop the game or not. In football if the referee decides - the challenge was not a foul; or - the ball did not go out of play; or - the player was not off-side, then play continues, and indeed could continue for quite some time (and with more decisions for the ref to make) before the next stop in play. So if you can't make these decisions instantaneously you have a problem. In the sports which already have video refereeing, play has generally already stopped by the time the decision needs to be made. I am in favour of technology for making decisions, but only for decisions of fact which can be made instantaneously (by some sort of computer), not for judgement decisions. For example: - Did the ball cross the line? - Was the player standing in an off-side position when the ball was played? - Which team was the last to touch the ball before it went out of play? In principle these things could be computerised and a signal sent to the linesman when such an event occurred, who would then flag in the normal way. A spectator wouldn't notice any difference. But the first of these is by far the easiest to implement, since it only involves keeping track of one roughly spherical object, not 22 irregularly-shaped objects. So I'd like to see them implement technology for goal-line decisions first, and see how that goes. Automatic checking for off-sides would be of far greater benefit (they're so difficult for the linesman to get right), and I think it must be possible with sufficiently good technology, but it's so much harder to implement.

That is what they do. Points Schmoints but with any 2-suiter short of a GF they rebid 2♦, just like the Americans, French, Itallians etc. OK And when responder bids 2H, the hand with 17 schmoints does what? They make a third bid, just like the Americans, French, Italians etc.

Oh, this must be a bug - I was watching vugraph and wondered what would happen if I clicked on the score at the bottom left of the screen. What happens is that the list of results goes completely blank (white), and won't come back. Surely that's not supposed to happen ...

Agree with Frances. This is to play, and it's not our job to work out what hand partner is doing it on.

Take away the seventh heart and I might have to think a bit ...

Interesting, I thought the choice was between 1 and slightly-stronger-version-of-4. Either way it shows stuff in diamonds. In any case it really wouldn't have occurred to me to do anything with 2.

Agree with Frances. Perhaps the double is a poor choice, but that is no reason not to adjust. You have to ask whether the double would still have been made if given the right information.

My problem is laziness in the play, particularly defence. I rely far too much on instinct rather than calculation. I can count the cards ... provided that I actually bothered to look at what everyone played. Perhaps about 50% of the time when declarer runs a suit I don't even register which cards my partner discarded. I also tend to give incorrect signals, either because of some groundless fear that it would help declarer, or (more likely) because I already had the card in my hand before I'd thought about whether it was the correct card to play. I also don't care enough about winning. When I played for the junior team I hated the way everyone took it so seriously.

I wouldn't expect BBO to take action against a TD just for making a few "bad decisions". After all, making the right decision is not always easy, particularly online. Of course, there are some things which a TD can do wrong which should not be allowed to continue, but these would have to be considerably worse than a bad decision (obvious example: cancelling a tourney half-way through for no good reason). I do think it is in BBO's interests to "police" its TDs to some extent. But even checking for the obvious abuses would (I guess) be a full-time job. It's surely not realistic to expect them to review every decision made. Hence the reply that it is up to the players to work out which tourneys they are happy to play in.

Everything that was said in that email response seems fine to me. But we should be careful here. That email looks very much like a "standard letter" (and even if it is not, that is the tone of it). The problem with these things is that even if it is very carefully worded and the policy is fine (which it is), there is a danger of it coming across as unresponsive. If the complaint was about "disrespect" as per the thread title, then this is not really addressed by the reply.

Yeah, get the computer to deal some hands, and then look at what would happen on those. That's what I do.

No. The current version is the same: you can't psyche any artificial or conventional opening bid. Exactly. ================== Personally I do think the ACBL is misguided in becoming ever more conservative in what they allow. But here I can at least see their point of view. Whereas, I think it is inexcusable that they have had a review without making any attempt to fix the places where the charts are unclear and self-contradictory.

Law 12A2: The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board. Does this apply to boards which have been "sabotaged"? That is a matter of interpretation. A TD could easily interpret 12A2/C1 as allowing him to cancel the board and award averages.

It's true that there is no explicit mention of "sabotage bids", but there are laws which deal generally with disruption of the game. I would rule that it is covered by Law 74C6 ("showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal"), also arguably 74A2 and 74B1. There may be a judgement to be made. But that's what we have TDs for.

I asked you which law. You gave me a regulation - one which applies only in ACBL tournaments (sectional and higher). So the law is 80F. WTP?

Ah well, 50% of them were right. That's not bad :)

Richard, the person you're replying to isn't the same person who wrote that quote. Also I think the complaint about "alert all artificial bids" is that there is a difference between a "bid" and an "agreement" - and it is only the latter that the Laws require to be disclosed. Unfortunately TDs sometimes fail to investigate what the actual agreement is. If the rule was that artificial agreements must be alerted, that would be OK.

What was it then, a misclick?

There is no logic in this. This is quite a common situation: you are in a game contract, which is sure to make and the only question is overtricks, but you suspect that most of the field will be in slam. Now there is an argument along these lines: "The only way I will get a good score on this board is if the slam is not making. So, I should assume that the cards are lying in such a way that the slam does not make, and play accordingly." But that is a complete fallacy. There is nothing you can do about the matchpoints you have against the pairs in slam. If the slam makes then you will lose those matchpoints; if the slam goes down you will win. Your play has no effect on this whatsoever: the outcome is already decided. The only pairs you are competing against in the play are the ones who are in game. That is the "field" you need to consider. You should play to maximize your expected matchpoint score against the other declarers in game, ignoring completely what would happen in slam. Basically that means you should take the "normal" matchpoint line.

I saw the same thing when kibitzing tonight (using IE). Similarly, when I subbed into a team match a few days ago it asked me whether I wanted to accept a claim but didn't tell me how many tricks were being claimed. (This could be the same bug.) But at other times it has worked OK ... I couldn't see a pattern but will keep looking. Also, twice tonight I was chatting to someone who was about to log off. There was no way to tell when they did log off (or at least no reason to notice) so my "chat" ended up being a mail message instead, but I didn't want to send it as a mail message. They'll have no idea what it means when they log on next time. Can there please be a confirmation before a mail message is sent, like in the client version? Or at least some obvious indication that that's what you're about to do.

OK, I bid 1♥ at the table, but wasn't sure that people would agree; anyway, the real problem is on the next round: - - 1♦ 1♥ Dbl 1♠ p ? Now what?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=shkqj83d75432cj86]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] RHO opens 1♦ as dealer (better minor). What's your call?

Nobody plays these Xs as t/o imo. Er, Justin, could you please correct your typo before everyone gets thoroughly confused? :)

I'll bid 3♣. Seems important to make some encouraging noise. I don't even mind if partner thinks it's forcing.