mink

Some BBO news are a little bit longer and require some attention. I used to logout from BBO prior to working through them. When I try this now, the window with the news disappears. I cannot see any advantage of these new windows. Please change it back to the old windows that were independent of the main BBO window. Karl

Some minutes ago I have finished an Express tourney. I had been dummy in board 4. When board 5 was displayed, I was dealer and the bidding box appeared, but there was no sound at this moment. But when it was my turn to call the second time, the sound was there, as it had been in the other boards. I think the most critical moment when I need a sound on a mobile device is when a new board is displayed, as it is desirable to switch off the screen in order to save energy in the break between the rounds. Fortunately I had not switched off the display this time. Again my partner won the auction of board 5. I saw the 3 pass calls, but nothing happened. I tried to test the chat after a while, but no chat window appeared. Some time later an Android message informed me that the app was not responding. I chose to kill the app and started it again. Fortunately I was back before board 6 had started, so that I was able to finish the tourney. My device is a Samsung Galaxy S running under Anroid 2.3. BBO App is version 3.60. Karl

I do not really need my notes under my partner's profile during the tourney, but rather I need them before the tourney. With this particular player I had just written down "o/e discards", and I am perfectly able to remember this during the tourney if it was possible for me to read this before the tourney. On the other hand, if BBO thinks that the notes are evil, maybe they should not be accessible by any client during the play of a tourney or team match. But I think that makes not much sense, because they can easily be transferred to some other window before the tourney via copy/paste. Karl

I think what he is talking about is, if a defender concedes some tricks, and the declarer accepts, there is no way for the other defender to stop this, though he should be able to do so according to Law 68B2. Karl

When I recently played a tourney, what I missed most were my comments below my partners profile. I solved this by switching to the Ubuntu machine after the first round, and learnt that I should have played o/e discards. I could have asked my partner, of course, but that would have shown that I did not learn our agreements by heart. Karl

After the tourney #5829 (Rock around the clock) I have been waiting for about an hour, but yet no "Other Tables"-Results are available. There is often a considerable and annoying delay until theses results arrive in "My Results", but I have never experienced a delay like this one. Looks like there is some malfunction. Karl

It looks like that the correct explanation for the 2♣ bid would have been: "any gameforce, except partner's strength is less than xxx". If this is what they really play, it was legal if explained correctly. Karl

[hv=lin=pn|South,West,North,East|st||md|3S3HTQD678JKC346TJ%2CS248TAH28D3QAC28K%2CS5KH5679KD49TC79Q%2C|rh||ah|Board 1|sv|o|mb|p|mb|1S|mb|p|mb|2N|an|bergen !s|mb|p|mb|4S|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|CJ|pc|C2|pc|C7|pc|CA|pc|SQ|pc|S3|pc|SA|pc|SK|pc|S2|]399|300[/hv] This was reported to me by a friend, who happened to be dummy in this board. She was playing in a regular free tourney which is restricted by the tourney host to players who ask for permission to play there. In trick 2 North played ♠K and asked for an undo, which was not granted by declarer. Director was called and adjusted immediately to ave+-. When the E/W players tried to play the next tourney, they found out that they were blacklisted by the host, and on request the host confirmed that this incident was the reason for the blacklisting. I have 3 comments on this: 1. When declarer led the ♠Q from the closed hand, North likely expected him to finesse the K and did not anticipate the ace being played from the dummy. Therefore the K from north is likely to be not a misclick, but simply caused by North not really looking what was played but just assuming what he anticipated. If so, the call for an undo would have been illegal. BBO rules state: I think that this implies that it is illegal for a tourney host to have a rule that says "All undo requests must be granted, otherwise players are blacklisted." I understand that tourney hosts have a lot of freedom to set up rules for their tourneys, but IMO rules that contradict BBO rules should not be allowed. 2. It was an IMPs tourney. The great majority made 11 tricks in this board. If the TD really wants to grant the undo by making an adjustment, IMO he should let the play continue, which will likely result in 12 tricks for the declarer, and then adjust to 11 tricks. The difference was just 0.78 IMPs. AVE+- yielded 3 IMPs for the "non-offending" side and -3 IMPs for the "offending" side. 3. I find it hard to believe that the tourney host did not only blacklist the declarer, but also the dummy, who was not involved at all in the undo process. If somebody of the BBO stuff feels that it would be a good idea to talk with the tourney host about this, I can provide the name. For those who still think that a tourney rule that forbids the rejection of an undo has some merit, I have a case that I experienced recently in a tourney where I was directing: [hv=lin=pn|South,West,North,East|st||md|1S259TJKHAD67QKC79%2CS8QAH267JQD3TC4JQ%2CS367H48KD28AC26TA%2C|rh||ah|Board 15|sv|n|mb|1S|mb|2H|mb|3S|mb|p|mb|4S|mb|p|mb|p|mb|p|pc|HQ|pc|H4|pc|H3|pc|HA|pc|C7|pc|CJ|pc|CA|pc|C3|pc|HK|pc|H5|pc|C9|pc|H2|pc|S3|pc|S4|pc|S9|pc|SQ|pc|CQ|pc|C2|pc|C5|pc|S2|pc|D6|pc|DT|pc|DA|pc|D4|pc|S7|pc|H9|pc|SJ|pc|SA|pc|D3|pc|D2|pc|DJ|pc|DK|pc|SK|pc|S8|pc|S6|pc|D5|pc|DQ|pc|H6|pc|D8|pc|D9|pc|D7|pc|H7|pc|H8|pc|C8|pc|S5|pc|C4|pc|C6|pc|HT|pc|ST|pc|HJ|pc|CT|pc|CK|]399|300[/hv] In trick 9, South (the declarer) had played ♦7, which was ruffed by West. He asked for an undo, which was rejected. He called the TD, complained about the rejection in an unfriendly way, and asked again. Before I was able to say anything, E/W accepted the undo. I said to the table that, according to the rules of this tourney, there should not be undo requests for a card played, but only for calls. South objected to this in an unfriendly way. After the board was finished, I adjusted to 10 tricks for the declarer and blacklisted him, but not the dummy. Karl

Is a misclick something like a card that is accidentally exposed, or is it like a card played? I would say, the latter. The former would be hitting the mouse button with your coffee pot, but this is not very likely. If we assume that a click on a card expresses the will to play a card, there is no undo in the laws. If I have real cards and I grab the wrong one, it will have been played as soon as my partner can see it (defender) or it has nearly touched the table (declarer). Karl

But maybe it would be a good idea to have three options: undo enabled, undo disabled, and undo enabled for bidding only, but not for the cards, because at a real table Law 25A allows an "undo" for calls. For the play of the cards there is nothing like an undo in the Laws. Karl

An insufficient bid is never influenced by a failure to alert. Therefor applying Law 21B was a director's error (Law 82C). The correct ruling would have been simply applying Law 27. Treating both sides non-offending after that would result in W 3♥+1 for for N/S and W 4♥= for E/W. I agree that it is unlikely that West would have passed if told that East must pass for the rest of the auction, so South can never play 2♠. I guess that only 10 tricks will be made by West if he is declarer, because North will lead his partner's suit, ♠, and I cannot see a way for South to avoid 3 tricks in the black suits now.

Since the Android Status bar at the top of the screen is hidden by the BBO app (sigh!), maybe at least the current time could be displayed somewhere. Karl

When I adjust based on Laws 41D and 12A1, assuming they lead high from doubleton and low from 3 cards, I consider that with 4 ♣ cards in the dummy it is possible that declarer has 2 and West has 3. If East sees 5 cards in the dummy, declarer can only have 1 or 3 cards. If he has 1 card, East can safely continue ♣ as partner must have the King. I he has 3 cards, partner will appreciate 2 ruffs. So I adjust to 8 tricks for the declarer. Karl

The German regulating authority disallows any change of understanding after questions, answers or irregularities.

The director should have offered West the opportunity to change his final pass if he feels that with the correct information he would have chosen some other call. However, if he really wanted bid 7♣ then, he could not legally do so considering the UI by partner's question about 5♣. The probability that East would have bid 7♣ all alone by himself with the correct information is zero IMO. Karl

Yes, pass is LA. E/W may have up to 23 HCP. They problably have a ♦-Fit, but this does not mean that we have a ♥-fit, it could also be a ♣-fit or no fit at all. The hesitation makes it more likely that we have the HCP-majority, and therefore suggest bidding. Karl

I would have been surprised if West made any call without hesitation after East continued to bid over 3nt. A pause of thought is mandatory now, and therefore does not carry any information. Karl

When I receive chat from an invisible player, I am able to respond, and the response reaches the other player immediately. This has worked many times. Maybe BillHiggin's problem occurs when the other player is playing in a tourney, or if one of the chat partners has marked the other as enemy. Karl

This law clearly shows that the right to think when one has a bridge reason does not trump all obligations. One still has an obligation to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". A phrase like "It is desirable, though not always required, ..." should not be part of any law, bridge or otherwise. The Law should tell me what I am allowed to do, and what I am not allowed to do. But this phrase renders everything that comes next to a vagueness and causes different interpretations. The same is true when I am required to "be particularly careful". It does not say what to do if I really have to think in order to solve a current bridge problem, and happen to recognize that thinking may mislead opp (btw. I only might recognize that it MAY mislead opps, as maybe different opps might draw quite the opposite conclusions from my thinking, as this thread shows.) Am I allowed to think now, or means "being careful" that I have to make a decision without thinking or, if I already did think some time and it suddenly strikes my mind that my thinking might mislead opps, chose the alternative that is less misleading for them instead of the alternative that is likely the best for me? And what if I never imagined that my thinking might mislead opps? Can I still be made responsible for not trying hard enough to envision what might be going on in my opps' minds? Karl

[hv=pc=n&s=sk75hdt5c&n=s6hdaq8ct]133|200[/hv] This was the situation when South played the last ♣ from the dummy. He knew that East had 3 ♠ cards and 2 ♦ cards left. If I was South and saw East pitching a ♦ after thinking for a minute, I would be sure that he as not the ♦K, because everybody knows that you have to play a ♦ immediately if you are going to bare the king. First thinking and then baring the king is something normal club level players do, but not true experts. So I would faithfully cross to the hand in ♠ and take the ♦-finesse. If the finnesse fails because he has really bared the king after thinking about it, I would be really embarrassed and call the director because East, the expert, behaved like an ordinary player in order to fool me. Apart from that, I really believe that the right to think whenever I have a bridge reason trumps all obligations not to mislead opps. Nowhere in the Laws it is mentioned that I have the obligation to take a thinking tank some tricks before the problem has fully evolved in order to avoid that opps are misled. I rather think that they still find a way to be misled if I think in advance. Karl

After the first 7 tricks West was holding ♠K963, ♥J, ♣A. West knew that he had to discards 2 more cards on ♦. In trick 6 he had already pitched a ♥ in order to make South believe that he did not need to protect an ♥honor. But what if South would not care but cash ♥KT? On the other hand, if East had the Ten, it would be reasonable to discard the J so that his partner would know that he must keep his Ten guarded. In my view this was really enough bridge reason to be allowed to think about it. Karl

If a claim is made and accepted in the last board of a round in the middle of a tourney, the unplayed cards remain visible. Even cards played to an unfinished trick are still displayed like the trick is still in progress, and the name of the player who would have to play next if there had been no claim is still highlighted. If the dummy does not pay attention and misses the claim, he might well think that the play is not over, an start some unnecessary chat on this topic. This does no harm, of course. But if the TD is called to such a table, the board appears like it is not finished, and the TD maybe will try to rush the player that appears to be the next to play. Eventually, if nothing is said by any player, the TD maybe will replace the player believed to have stalled. Of course, in the lower left corner there is a little statement that says that play has finished at this table, but it can easily be overlooked. I know that this behavior is the same since the web client was launched. However I think it is still a good idea to clear the screen after an accepted claim. I guess not much programming is needed to achieve that. Karl

I have been playing on my Samsung Galaxy S with a 4 inch display against other players, and it worked nicely. I chose the option to verify the cards played, so that I have to tap twice for any card. This way, mistaps are really rare. Karl

Does "Pay attention, partner, I'm dealer" carry any other information than the wish to draw attention to the irregularity and the discontent with the fact that the partner did not pay attention? I would say, it doesn't. Therefore, North is not restricted and did chose a lucky call. Karl

Ok, you don't believe, but you did not explain why. And I fail to see the relevance of East's intentions. Law 68B1 reads: "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; ..." There is nothing else required for a statement to qualify as a concession, not even East's intention to concede. There was a statement, and this statement clearly implies that East believes he is currently at least down 4. If South and North knew the Laws well enough, they would have accepted the concession and returned their cards into the board. And East would probably not have objected, because this is what he wanted to achieve by his statement, the play would have been accelerated a lot. By the way, even if East tried to have his concession canceled, this cannot be done via Law 69B, which only deals with a withdrawn agreement by the opponents of the player who conceded. Rather, it could be only done via Law 71, but there is a normal play that leads to -4, so this Law is not applicable in this case. I doubt that. East's statement shows resignation. If you imply that maybe he only acted like he was sure to lose a fortune, and tried talk opps into some bad play, this would qualify for removal from the tourney site. Rather, my impression is that he was honestly sad about his bad contract and truly believed he was about to go down for sure. Right, it doesn't sound like this. However, I believe that it is one of the holiest rights of a player to be able to think as long as he needs. Any statement that criticizes a player for thinking is truly rude. In this case, the criticism is about South not being able to see that his thinking will yield no significant benefit and he should know that the score will be a top for him anyway. A bad score is not enough to show East that this is not acceptable. Karl