candybar

At the very least, REQUIRE them to post that the TD is playing! If the tournament description doesn't say playing TD, I even go so far as to check the list of registered players looking for the host/TD name. TWICE today, the TD was playing, didn't post it, and registered at the last second, so I was stuck twice in tournaments that were total chaos. I say forbid playing TDs entirely, but if that is not going to happen, then at least force them to let the players know ahead of time, please!

Another example tonight of a director explaining someone's bid incorrectly. Auction went 1♣ P 1♥ 2♦ Dbl ....... my pard clicked the bid, got "No Information Available", I clicked it and got the same. So based on this forum's suggestion, I just called the director. While he was coming, opponent said privately to me, "no body must answer x". I replied that ALL agreements must be explained if asked, including doubles. The director arrived, we asked to know the meaning of the double, and two things happened simultaneously.... Opponent said to me privately, "ok I have fit". Director said to me privately, "point dbl and punishment". This is the reason that a director should never explain a bid ... he is telling what is in the opponent's hand, not what their agreement is.

I also have seen a lot of bad directing, spamming the tournament chat, and serious rudeness from the TDs and women who run that club. I don't play their tournaments any more, and I intend not to renew my membership. The chat in those tournaments is always flooded, first with all the rules (of which there seem to be excessive numbers), and then for the rest of the tournament with all the TD's "clever" comments and spam from a few of the regulars. All the serious players I know have quit playing, and you can tell membership is declining from the 10-15 advertisements sent to the lobby begging for players for every tournament. The only decent TD they had resigned a couple of weeks ago. The rest are overbearing controllers while TDing, and very rude when playing. The one time I called the (decent) TD about the rudeness, he said, "she owns the club, I can't do anything". My personal impression is that the club exists primarily for the ego of the people who run it. It's a real shame, because a good club for advanced players would be very nice to have, but this club is definitely not for serious players.

I did this once, when I was playing in a strange club while on a business trip. My third seat singleton was an ace, and declarer called for small card instantly as the dummy hit the table. I deliberately hesitated for about 5 seconds, then played the ace. Five seconds is not significantly out of tempo, but it was clearly a short time for thought. When I ruffed that suit a couple of tricks later, the opponents were furious, the director was called, the director advised me that it was unethical to hesitate with a singleton unless I said "I have no problem", and after the director left the table, the opponents directly accused me of cheating. I filled out a recorder form and never returned to that club. To this day, I have made a point of hesitating a few seconds whenever the first dummy card is played too quickly.

Do you have any idea how many YEARS of trying it took to change the Men's events to Open? Don't forget, a whole generation of women has been working to improve this mess for many years now, and while it's gotten a little better, there is still a long way to go.

I tried to post using ( C ) without the spaces and it came out © even with emoticons off ... is there any "escape" from the automatic conversion of such character strings? How can I post a ( C ) without the spaces and have it come out right?

The two biggest problems TDs have on BBO and that use the biggest percent of the TDs' time are (1) subbing players who are (A) gone completely, (B) red-dotted, or (C ) apparently present but unresponsive, and (2) adjusting scores for tables that didn't finish by the time the round changed, often because of something in part (1). If we could do away with the subbing problem, a lot of the adjusting problem would also disappear. Subs are required for 3 main reasons ... (1) a player crashes and can't return in time, (2) a player deliberately clicks out of the system to quit the tournament, and (3) a player asks to be subbed due to personal emergency reason. (The 4th reason, zero tolerance, has to be handled individually and won't come into this discussion.) Let's see if we can find a way to elminate the TD work and let the software handle it for some of these. It's certainly much better if the software can do jobs that it can do, and save a person having to do them -- that is the reason computer programming got invented in the first place. My Proposal -- -- to Problem 1A and 1B: The software should time the missing person or red-dotted person and issue an automatic subbing after a fixed amount of time. Continue to allow the partner to request his/her own sub, but if they do not, let the software do it. Allow players to Withdraw themselves from tournaments, but keep records (as already discussed in the TD Wish List). -- to Problem 1C: Ding the opening bidder at the start of each board, INCLUDING the start of a new round. Ding any player that takes more than the fixed amount of time without bidding, playing, or chatting.... The software should record time on the bidding, play and chat (already requested in the TD Wish List for other reasons), and compute the time used by each player at the table. If one player takes longer than a fixed amount of time, without bidding, playing a card, or saying anything in chat, presume they have fallen asleep and ding them, replace them if they don't respond. -- to Problem 2: Any pair that has a missing player at the round change should be automatically cut, similar to the 0% survivor cut system. That may require a sitout for an unmatched pair at the lowest table, or even use GIB for filling a table. Moreover, when a round finishes and a table hasn't, use the computed time to assign fault for not finishing. Give the slow side A- and the faster pair A+ or even Avg of their game. If a claim was pending when the round ended, automatically accept it. This would eliminate most of the adjusting that TDs have to do, and leave them free to fix any minor remaining issues with how the automatic adjustment resolved. Result -- Implementing all of that together would eliminate a huge part of the TDs time presently used subbing players. It would also eliminate some of the late tables not finishing a round and having to have their scores manually adjusted. Combining these methods for subbing and score adjusting would make it possible for TDs to spend their time doing what directors should be doing, managing ethics, behavior, and other real issues, instead of manually doing things that the software could easily do for them. Eliminating problems is so much better than solving them!

I also frequently would like to find out how much time is left in a tournament. Sometimes I am waiting for someone who is playing, or want to sign up for another tournament with them, but don't know how much longer they will be. If kibs are not allowed, there is no way to find out. If you are not in the tournament and the name of the TD is not posted, there is no way to even find out who is TD to ask them.

RATS! We seem to be regressing again. Today, in a BBOLAND pay tournament, with NO indication in the description or rules, the TD posted: !s!h!c!d NO pshyo bids on 1st or 2nd hand !d!c!H!s I thought it was made clear here that all pay tournaments were required to follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. When are we going to set some standards? AT LEAST force TDs to post their homegrown "rules"?

The BBO ACBL tournaments are not sayc-only. They allow most systems, including Precision, Polish Club, etc. They ban some conventions (like Multi 2D, no one seems to understand why :P ), but anything on the GCC is ok. It's just that if you do not post your system on a CC, THEN you must play SAYC. per the default CC.

No, never ... i am totally against playing TDs since i am one of the people who continuously complains to nafiz about them. (Just kidding, nafiz, but most of them really are useless, and deserve complaining about)

Had the auction gone exactly as it did, but with no alerts or explanations, I think it's clear you have no problem bidding 2S. Partner did not overcall hearts, and hearts is a suit bid naturally by the opponents, so it is next to impossible that partner wants to play hearts on his own hand. Therefore, you, knowing that you don't have hearts, are perfectly free to bid 2S (even if you still thought you were playing Michaels). In the actual situation, your partner's explanation is correct, so there is no 'correction' to be made. You do not have to reveal that you made a mistake, not during the hand, not when asked at the end of the auction, and not voluntarily at the end of the hand. If the director asks, just tell the truth, you misbid. The only explanation the opponents are entitled to is your actual agreement. The point about you forgetting frequently is valid, and should be mentioned if true. However, your partner's explanation is clearly UI. You are not allowed to use that information, and the Law for this says: Law 16A Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. That means you may not choose a call that may have been suggested by your partner's explanation, if any logical alternative exists. Do you think there is any logical alternative to bidding 2S? I don't, and so I would let the result stand.

Can you give the source of this information? Is it from the yellow pamphlet that defines the original ACBL SAYC, or from an online source? And thanks for helping to clarify :D

A lot of the confusion comes from the fact that original SAYC was defined by (and presumably the definition belongs to) the ACBL. Then some online sites began to use the term SAYC, but changed it to suit themselves. BBO at least calls theirs BBO Basic. So right now, I don't know what exactly the BBO ACBL directors are using for their 'official' SAYC, and the SAYC convention card that is automatically posted for you when you join an ACBL tourney doesn't have that detail on it. You'll have to ask the BBO ACBL personnel what the system actually is, and of course this makes it very hard for those who (as you will see when you join an ACBL tournament) must post their own convention card or use the SAYC default one. Because of this unique situation in the ACBL tournaments, it is possible to 'have an agreed system' without knowing what the details are. Worse yet, it's possible that the system is not truly well-defined for this setting. In a live tournament, of course, you just pick up the player's convention card and look. At no time did anyone assert that the players knew what their agreement was, it's very common for players to think they know, be wrong, not be sure, or not realize, etc etc etc. In fact, it kind of belies the common meaning of the word 'agreement', but unfortunately, that's what it's called in bridge.

When asked for further information, he must either say 'no agreement' or fully explain the agreement. Also, keep in mind especially in ACBL, they HAVE agreed, SAYC by default if no other system. In SAYC, 1♦ P 3♦ is limit raise, and unless they had agreed to some other system, THAT is an agreement, even if they didn't discuss it explicitly. I'd have to look to see what SAYC officially says about 1♦ X 3♦, but whatever it is, that was their agreement.

Yes, this means that OPPONENTS are free to use such information. But it is always at their own risk. If an opponent hesitates before playing, presumably thinking about something, you are allowed to notice that and use it. But if you make a play based on such mannerisms, you don't get to complain later that you were wrong. If the opponents ask about some bid you made, you are allowed to construe whatever you want from that, but the questioner's partner is NOT. This also has been the source of some related rules, such as you are not allowed to deliberately hesitate or do things to deceive the opponents. Hesitating longer than tempo when you have a singleton is, for example, improper.

First, most important ... what is the minimum for an opening bid? Does it differ by seat position?

By the way, this brings up another pet peeve of mine ... When undos are not allowed, people sometimes say "misclick" publicly at the table. This of course alerts their partner that their bid or play is not what they intended. In such a case, unauthorized information has clearly been passed, and I believe that such players should be educated immediately about passing UI to their partner, and if damage can be demonstrated, adjustments made in accordance with UI rules.

Heh, how can this be correct ? Surely this the same as alerting a bid and explaining what you have in your hand as opposed to your partnership agreement - the opps now know more than your partner! :) You may, if you wish. There is no Law prohibiting giving extra information to the opponents, and if you do, they are free to use it. However, you are definitely not required to do so. I personally do not. Yes. Proprieties LAW 73 COMMUNICATION A. Proper Communication between Partners 1. How Effected Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. This means that if a player does receive unauthorized information, he is (1) Not allowed to use it, but moreover, (2) Must choose a call or play that CANNOT have been suggested by the unauthorized information, if any such alternative exists. You are not allowed to choose an advantageous call/play, and then say, "but that's what I would have done anyway." It is an online thing. Normally, in the case of ANY irregularity, the director MUST be summoned, and s/he then determines if any undo of bidding or play is warranted. In non-tournament online play, there is no director, so undos are reasonable, due to computer/mouse glitches, although in my opinion they are far overused for brain glitches. In tournament online play, it is appropriate to have the director make such decisions, but unfortunately there is no undo available to the director alone, so tournaments have to be set up either with undos allowed by opponents or no undos allowed. Hopefully this will be corrected one of these days.

With an opening hand count, I like to open 1H first, then jump to 4♥ over most responses. This hand is marginal opener, but the singleton K♠ tips the balance to preemptive. I vote 4♥.

Keep in mind that you are only required to alert or explain your AGREEMENTS. A misclicked bid (in no-undo situations) must be treated as a normal bid. The fact that it was a mistaken bid (or a psyche, or an out-of-system bid) need not be revealed to the opponents, and certainly should not be revealed to your partner. If an opponent asks, you are free to privately tell him it was a misclick, but you if you choose not to and they ask for explanation, you should explain your agreements on the bid you actually made, even though it is not what you hold in your hand. The one time I did this, I sent a private message to the TD immediately, saying that I had misclicked, and had explained my actual bid to the opponents, but the opponents were likely to complain when they found out. Sure enough, they did, and the TD rightly told them no adjustment.

There is also the expectation that experienced players will ask if they want to know, alert or not. Certainly in the case of 1N 2♥, pretty much anyone knows that it might be 2-suited. If it matters to your bidding, you MUST ask. You cannot ignore that possibility, and then claim later that you didn't know what it was. For an entirely different example, suppose the bidding goes 1♣ P 1♥ P 1♠ P 2♦ (no alert) .... and I hold some nice solid diamond holding. I play 4th suit forcing myself, so I am expected to notice this and ASK if I want to know whether the diamond bid is natural or not. I cannot quietly pass, then later claim that I would have doubled for a lead had it been alerted. The ACBL alert procedure puts it this way: "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. " If you have reason to suspect, and don't ask, then you are not entitled to any adjustments.

If, by that, you mean are there any tournaments that allow all systems, conventions, and psyches, provided alertable, conventional, or unusual bids are alerted and fully disclosed .... yes, seems like more of them in the last few days. Perhaps TDs are starting to realize that people actually want to play Bridge and not some other game.

Sigh, another one for the telling..... The setting: A tourney that prohibits Polish Club and Psyches completely. Hand 1: K10542, K5, K4, Q1072 -- bidding goes P P 1C with this hand by a Polish player whose profile said Polish Club. When asked, he claimed they were playing SAYC but he felt like bidding 1C in the 3rd seat. TD came, asked what system they are playing several times, and they never answered. "I'm watching them", the TD told me privately and left the table. Hand 2: A107, 82, J5, J109832 -- same player, bidding goes 1C 1S 2H P P(!), no alerts. TD comes back, says "It's not a psyche, it's a light opening." Is it any wonder that players are confused and frustrated at the TDs? Earlier today, I was at a tournament with a playing TD who had NOT posted that s/he was playing. There was almost a revolt by the end of the tournament, with at least 5 people making derogatory public comments to the tournament about the incompetence of the TD, and the TD was booting people right and left, apparently for expressing their discontent.

I wouldn't call the revoke penalties punishment. When a revoke occurs, the entire line of play is affected, and it is very difficult to reestablish what really would or should have happened. Many club directors are simply not good enough players to do this fairly, but even worse, many players would argue forever about what they 'would have done', so I have always looked at the revoke penalty as a way to protect the director. Notice that if the offending side did not win any more tricks, there is no penalty at all, so it cannot be called punishment in that case. Punishment would require punishing the offense, not affected by when it occurred. When the offending side has won later tricks, the penalty is very moderate and reasonable, not draconian. The non-offending side still has the right to show that the line of play in process would have produced more, thus making this into a 'restore equity' penalty, at least in my humble opinion. In addition, the director is not allowed to cancel the penalty nor penalize more, even though he can use his discretion with other things like procedural penalties. A punishment would allow him to increase the penalty for multiple violations, etc. Fortunately, we don't have to deal with this in online bridge :)