candybar

I bet it was the tea party :)

Kudos to Hannie for a very nice, respectful, explanation of the situation and his/her intentions -- it would certainly make me comfortable with the purpose behind the original question, and it shows maturity and class not to be upset with the fact that this thread was posted. Kudos to rwylee for trying to find out the right way to handle such a situation -- it shows that, intermediate or not, new TD or not, at least s/he is trying to do a good job of being a TD and cares about learning the things s/he doesn't know. :D :D :D :D :D

I don't see it as ego, but I do like to have fairly big tourneys. I guess it has to do with getting as much value (contribution to BBO) as possible for the time I invest in directing a tourney.

In f2f bridge, if someone asked, "Can I claim on a squeeze", I would treat it as a claim. Play ceases, declarer faces his cards, explains his line of play, and if he is correct, the claim is accepted; if not, he loses. I see no reason why it should be different in online bridge. Asking who holds a king is a reasonable question to save time, but certainly should indicate that the finesse is being taken. If the opponents answered the question and then the declarer played out the hand using the information to avoid the finesse, I'd boot him from the tourney and report him to abuse. If a declarer claims on a squeeze by asking the opponents if he can, it might be because he doesn't know for sure. Or he might be asking if the opponents understand a squeeze. I wouldn't assume either case, I'd just instruct him to claim, let the opponents see his cards, and then they can decide in a normal manner. If they don't understand the squeeze, they can reject and see it played out. However, if they reject it, I'd instruct him that he MUST follow the line of play that he stated. If he does not, I'd report him, and adjust the score. I have twice seen cases online where the declarer claimed stating a line of play and then when the claim was rejected, did something else. In both those cases, the TD did nothing about it. Once a line of play is stated, such as "black suit squeeze", declarer has no choice about how he plays the hand.

http://www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/SmithTransfe...20advances' www.bridgeguys.com/pdf/SmithTransferAdvances.pdf#search='transfer%20advances'

May I suggest an alternative to a Confirm button? Let us click the Number and the Suit (which now immediately makes the bid), and then one more click to actually submit the bid. This is different than a Confirm that would constantly pop up annoying some people. It is an additional click for each bid, but it would allow you to click the bid you intend to make, look at it, then click the Send button.

Technically, if the hand cannot be played normally, all pairs not at fault get A+. So if this happened in live bridge and the hand had to be abandoned halfway through (for example an emergency called a player away), both sides would get A+. The Laws also state that one of the functions of the Director is to restore equity. If the board is clearcut 3N= across the field, it is very reasonable to adjust to that score. Online, I tend to handle each situation individually. If the played cards are easy, I tell the sub (ex: 3 diamond tricks, 2 trump tricks gone). If not, I see if the line is absolutely clear and tell the declarer to claim x tricks. If can't do that, I let them play it out, but if the result is abnormal because of the sub, I adjust the score to A++, A==, or to an expected common result. I think, jillybean, that you did the right thing on this hand. If 3N= was the normal result and would most likely have been the result without the crash, then adjust to it. These decisions are very hard when the environment is less than perfect and rushed. The best thing to do is keep the underlying principles of (1) no fault gives A+, and (2) restore equity always in the back of your mind and do the best you can within those principles.

Your word "probably" bothers me. If you know the bid was based on disruption rather than bridge, you should adjust the score. If you can demonstrate that the bid was improper for such a reason, for example, an opening 7S with 12 HCP and 5 spades, then adjust. If you are just assuming/guessing, then you really can't adjust it, because it could be a legitimate auction that got out of hand, misunderstood, or whatever. The Laws say that when a board cannot be played normally through no fault of the players (as is the case with the opponents if you decide the bid is improper), then they get A+. Deliberately or improperly bidding a board for the purpose of going down, or to annoy your partner is unethical and should be reported to Abuse@.... So if you decide to adjust, the correct adjustment would be A+ for the opponents and 0 for the offenders, plus an ethics committee. However, the BBO software does not allow that, so all you can do is A+-, giving the non-offending side A+ and the offenders A-.

TDs can make mistakes through ignorance. I know because I made one once :) Seriously though, any TD this ignorant should not be a TD. It's not right to make up your own rules and then penalize people for breaking them. Any TD who does THAT is much worse than ignorant. Ignorance means that there is something that you haven't learned yet. This so-called TD most likely doesn't care and doesn't want to know the Laws, he just wants to enforce his own idea of how bidding should go.

Penalty doubles of 1N are not alertable, and you should just tell N that. Sounds to me like you did exactly right and were very professional about how you handled the call and the subsequent discussion.

There is no Law or rule against opening 1N with a singleton. Even the ACBL doesn't forbid it, they only forbid an agreement to do it, and as far as I know they are the only ones who even do that. The only BBO tournament I know of that was making such a "rule" was Sky Club, as discussed in the Sky Club thread in Tournaments section, and Zmey said he would put a stop to it. If this tournament was Sky Club, I suggest you send the name of the TD to Zmey and let him take care of it. Yes, you were robbed! Stop playing in any tournament run by that organization, host, or TD, and send me a private message and tell me who it was so I can avoid them also. :)

I find that someone always blames the opponents for playing slowly and wants an adjustment for A- scores. I also think that it's almost impossible to determine who is at fault for the slow play, using the current software. Even watching, it's hard to distinguish deliberate slow play from a slow connection. So my policy is to adjust whenever the board is within a few tricks of complete, or the line or result is very clear. These problems are the reason the TD Wish List I posted a few weeks ago contains a request for (1) the ability to add 1 minute to a round more quickly and easily, and (2) timestamps on bids/plays for the round. I renew my request to Fred to implement this new TD software as soon as he can find the time. However, I'm more interested in an analysis of the hand and issue in question here. Does it look to you like the 2♠ was a signal showing the Q? If you think it was, would you duck the K♠ if you had the East hand?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s9865haj42d43cakj&w=sqjt2h983da9cq865&e=sk43hkdqt765ct974&s=sa7hqt765dkj82c32]399|300|Scoring: IMP P 1C P 1H P 2H P 4H P P P P[/hv] Opening lead: A♦, East plays 7♦... Trick 2: 5♣, A♣, East plays 4♣... ... normal play ... Trick 6: East (having just won the heart finesse) returns the 4♠, declarer plays A♠, West plays 2♠... ... a few more tricks and this position at trick 10: [hv=d=w&v=n&n=s9865haj42d43cakj&w=sqjt2h983da9cq865&e=sk43hkdqt765ct974&s=sa7hqt765dkj82c32]399|300|Scoring: IMP P 1C P 1H P 2H P 4H P P P P[/hv] Now declarer leads the 6♠ from the dummy, and they run out of time, both sides get A- and West wants an adjustment to Down 1. I tell him it looks like making to me, and West claims that his 2♠ promised the Q♠, and his partner will duck the K♠ so he can win and lead the last trump. I ask East what their discard agreement is, and cannot get an answer. West calls himself Expert, East calls himself Beginner. Would you adjust at all, and if so, would you believe West and give down 1, or would you believe that East would play the K♠ and the contract make?

I also was hassled once (maybe 2 weeks ago) by a free tourney TD about this. The next free tourney was in 35 minutes, and it was one of those open chat, no psyche, beginner thingys that I hate anyway, so I decided to start one. To avoid interferring, I deliberately scheduled mine for 15 minutes away, to leave a 20 minute gap before the next free one, and I STILL got called unethical and unfair, and told I didn't know the BBO rules about scheduling tourneys, all by the TD of that next free tourney. He even threatened to report me to abuse for it. I just told him I would run my tourney whenever I felt like, and good luck to him, but I think maybe we should have a consistant plan for this, like tell a yellow at the time it happens and let the yellow inform them of BBO's policy. Do the yellow's all know uday's position on this?

I played the tournament discussed here, and I can attest that 1. It was very clear in the description that the hands were predealt. 2. It was very clear in the description that it was not goulash, but specific hand types. 3. It was a very well run tournament with no problems that I could see. 4. The directing seemed to be quite good, with the TDs right on top of what was happening. 5. The chat was not filled with spam from the TDs, so it was possible to concentrate. 6. The hands were interesting but not silly or outrageous like some predealts are. All in all, a very enjoyable tournament and I hope to play in the next one!

Unfortunately, reporting him still does not get rid of him from the table ... only the boot button does that. And it is true that the number of crazies that I boot from the table in any given month can be counted on one hand or maybe one finger, but since you didn't tell us the target number of boots to cause auto-banning, you'll have to forgive people for feeling a little paranoid.

I think that sounds like a reasonable reaction. What is wrong with it? Not a lot, it just means that the "solution" to the original problem isn't going to work, and for those who need to boot someone for legitimate reasons, you have to take the time and trouble to tell the remaining people what is about to happen, close the table, start a new one, wait for the welcome people to come back. It's much easier and quicker to just boot the unwelcome one.

I think the "auto" nature of this banning is extremely dangerous. I boot people from my table for 1. Rudeness to anyone at the table. 2. Inappropriate sexual remarks or obscenity. 3. Remarks derogatory toward gender, ethnic, racial, or religious groups. 4. Repeatedly refusing to alert or explain their bidding. 5. Repeatedly rejecting undos that I consider fair. 6. Rejecting valid claims and forcing the hand to be played out. 7. Extreme slowness. 8. Repeated bad connection problems. 9. Refusing my request for them to leave. 10. Any reason that I no longer wish to be at the same table with them. Even in the Main Bridge Club, I think I have a right to play against whomever I wish, and NOT be forced to continue playing against someone I don't want at my table. All this new auto-banning will do is force people to close the table and start a new one to get rid of problem people.

As long as your "PP" is a warning, fine, but no score adjustment is appropriate. It might help if, for the purposes of these discussions, you would distinguish between "warning" and a score "procedural penalty". I think undoubling the result is a very fair choice if opponents are not likely to have suspected the J2N bidding, and no adjustment if they are J2N players who should have realized what it was.

The ACBL Alert Procedure contains these two statements: -- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves. -- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation. While I realize that the ACBL does not include the entire world, and other countries than the US might have different approaches, I have yet to see anything better, more carefully thought out, or more fair, than the ACBL Alert Procedure. It is this on which I based my statements.

An important point here is that all of these things from revokes (fixed penalty) to failures to alert (judgment required) must always be assumed to be accidental or from ignorance. We are NOT talking about deliberate cheating or deliberate unethical behavior, deliberate use of illegal agreements, etc. Those belong to an entirely different category of penalties. In the ACBL, for example, those sort of things are covered in the ACBL Disciplinary Code. They are not part of the Laws. When a failure to alert happens, and as TD you are forced to make judgments about damage, what might have happened, what action would restore equity, and benefit of the doubt going to the non-offending side, always remember that no crime has been committed, and you are not the police, jury, or executioner. Your job as TD is to make sure the non-offending side is not damaged by the failure, and that is ALL. It is NOT to punish, and you should NOT assume that any failure to alert is deliberate. If you have evidence that it is deliberate, then it falls into the Disciplinary Code venue and should be handled by those whose job it is to deal with cheating, NOT by the TD at the table.

Definitely not. A failure to alert does NOT demonstate damage, and an adjustment based on damage is NEVER automatic for an alert failure. Unless the entire field is in 4DN=, it is not right for the director to assume that is what NS might have done had they had the chance. And in this case in particular, I find it hard to accept that NS would find such a contract with 11 opposite 9 points and the opponents bidding. IF you are going to adjust, A+/A- is very appropriate. Jillybean, I think your solution was exactly right. The opponents were expected to ask about the bidding if it was alerted, or if there was any reason to suspect it was not natural. If you believe the questionable timing of the diamond alert led to an unfair result, then it might be fair to adjust, but I think the fact that South had another chance to get into the auction and took no action suggests that he is just hoping for something he didn't deserve. A warning to EW and let the result stand is a good decision, and makes all the important points to both sides, in my opinion.

I'm saying that because the TD can see all the hands, to play with one account and be able to see all the hands with another is subject to potential abuse. I know it's easy enough for the person to say "I don't do that", but (1) if not, then why not just use one account to play and TD, and (2) wherever the possibility exists, the temptation will always exist as well.

I certainly don't have any problem with controlled permissions, but I wonder if you should consider setting some guidelines, like .... not playing on one account in the same tournament you are TDing with a second account.

Personally, I think the Broadcast should be limited to emergency announcements, such as the situation after a crash, or when BBO is deliberately being taken offline for an hour, or a significant problem such as the GIBs being used improperly. The "vugraph starting" announcements are not particularly important, when anyone in the lobby can see that a vugraph session is active on the Explore Bridge button. Today there were multiple Broadcast announcements (in different languages) announcing that Forquet and Garozzo were playing at a Main Club table. The announcer was an Italian, so maybe he thought it was of global importance, but I didn't. :( B)