glen

Over 2NT, partner should be able to bid 3♠ natural and forcing. Now opener's hand raises to 4♠ - also opener should advance cuebid ♦s or ♥s on the way to 4♠ with a good red suit value, so the bid of 4♠ implies a fair bit of stuff is in ♣s and ♠s. Responder should bid 4NT RKCB, and then play opener for a working Kxx xx xx AQxxxx and hope that opener also has one or both of the black jacks, or that something nice happens, such as ♣s and ♠s both spliting.

What was correct rebid?

Play two-way NMF, so that: 2♣ forces 2♦, and after opener bids this, responder passes with ♦ signoff or bids with any game invite, or bids 3NT to offer choice of game with 5♥s 2♦ is either: 1) Any Game Force 2) A signoff with 5+♥s and 4♠s Opener assumes 2) at first and bids 2♥ or 2♠ - then responder passes with 2) and bids again with 1) - the cheapest bid asks opener to continue to describe hand. So, for example, 1♣-1♠(showing ♥s)--1NT-2♦--2♥(prefers ♥s)-2♠ establishes a game force, says nothing about ♠s, and asks for a futher description.

Well not all relevant information is accessed by moving the mouse over the bid on the screen. For example, some FD systems say that their 1♣ opening is 3+♣s and 11-21. At this point, one wonders what their 1NT range is, if they are playing four or five card majors, if they are playing better minor openings or that 1♦ promises 4+ or 4-4-3-2 exactly, and if they are playing certain two level openings (e.g. Mexi) that would take hand types out of 1♣. All this relevant information is not accessible by moving the mouse over the bid. What FD needs is an overview or dashboard view of what one is facing, instead of having to navigate to various points (e.g. carding). This overview would be quite similar to the front page of the BBO cc, with some reductions. This would not be limiting ourselves to the familiar - it would be combining the best of the old and the new.

Would it be possible to post a thumbnail description about the system - opening structure and key features? Thanks in advance!

First, congrads on having a LMs Mid-chart game. Second, are we certain that ACBL-in-Memphis understands the nature of this restriction? I ask this before I write a letter to the ACBL bulletin.

Yes, this system is also based on some of the discussions and links given under this category for non-traditional types.

ETM Savage will be out shortly and combines elements of Landen/ Rajadhyaksha into the rest of the mix. Quick definitions: QBal - quasi-balanced, can be any 5-4-2-2, or have a six card minor Mini QBal Range: 8/9-11 Not vul, 10/11-12 Vul 1♣: 15+ Bal, ♠s, ♣s, Majors, 18+ ♥s, GF ♦s 1♦: 4+♦s, 12 to near GF or Mini QBal 4+♦s without 4cM 1♥: 5+♥s & 12-17 or Mini QBal with 4/5♥s OR both majors 8-11 (can have 4♥s & longer♠s if 8-9) 1♠: 5+♠s & 12-14 or Mini QBal with 4/5♠s OR 10+ both majors & 5+♠s OR 8-14 4♠s & longer ♣s OR 8-11 4♠s & longer ♦s 1NT: 11/12-14 Not vul, 12/13-14 Vul, QBal 2♣: 8-14, 5+♣s, not QBal if just 5♣s, fewer than 4♠s 2♦: 8-11, 5+♦s, not QBal if just 5♦s, fewer than 4♠s 2♥: 8-11, 5+♥s, not QBal if just 5♥s, fewer than 4♠s 2♠: 8-11, 5+♠s, not QBal if just 5♠s, fewer than 4♥s 2NT: 20/21-22 Bal 3X: 0-7, 6 or longer suit, quite random not vul

I take it the "..." means you don't want to get involved with the "endless carping" either, and since you are the only one of the three you listed posting here, it appears they don't wish to get involved with the "endless carping" too. So it seems that "carping" is futile and a waste of everybody's time. I do appreciate the clarity.

Speaking for my wife and I, we moved to playing tournaments on BBO (from Okb) due to ACBL games being available (a secondary factor was that it supports BBO via BBO $). So the only tournaments I would wish to organize would be ones that awarded ACBL masterpoints, and I don't believe I would have that opportunity. For the online games, I don't expect the bridge etc. to reach the ACBL sectional level, but if we were allowed to organize games, and if BBO made some software changes to make the work of the TDs easier, I feel we would over time approximate the maturity of a brick and mortar club game.

My favourite one from last week is this one: opponent is self-assessed as “expert” and opens 1♦ and rebids an alerted 2♥ over responder’s 1♠ bid (we are just passing). When this is clicked for explain we are told “suit”. I private message opponent and ask if it is a reverse, and told “no, not after a minor opening”. This was quite correct, as the expert only had about minimum opening values for the 2♥ rebid. So I agree with Dr Todd13 – it is better these players don’t have a sayc cc, and certainly don’t have a Full Disclosure (i.e. Bull Disclosure) cc. What the default setting should be is no cc. And if a partnership has no cc, then they must enter something into the white box before they are allowed to make any non-pass call. Sort of a pay-as-you-go cc. However they can’t use the no cc approach and play any formal system (sayc, 2/1, precision, polish, TOSR etc.) – it has to be just play-as-you-go. For leads and carding, it will be “please ask if we are defending”. The system could pre-announce at the start of each round e.g. “NS are playing no cc” since they are “world class”.

Love this idea - in tournaments (not in regular games) if you alert then you can't bid without typing something in the little white box - a little info-commercial should appear if you try to bid (okay, a popup-window) requesting that the little box be completed. Do you play in these? Agreed - just the same way we know there will be bad drivers on the roads. What we hope for is that the TDs know how to the police. If they can not recognize a clear misinformation case (whether it had resulting damage or not), they need some support for improvement. For process improvement, we could have: 1) ACBL tournament rules include announcement that to make suggestions or follow-up with concerns, email acbl@bridgebase.com 2) Emails get an immediate auto reply which includes a statement like - "sorry, we can't do any score adjustment at this point - however we are always looking for ways to improve the game, and add to the enjoyment." 3) Emails get a later reply indicating what, if anything, was done about it - if a mistake was made admit it and then say "we will try to do better the next time" - the "we" here is a collective we - the email replier likely had nothing to do with making the mistake. 4) Keep a spreadsheet to track types of problem, person involved, TD involved, and resolution type. This way you can see who's kickin' n' screamin' and which TDs deserve a big raise, and what's the big problem for the customer base. If some problems are frequent, develop a FAQ and include that in the auto reply sent. This customer service approach may not see results immediately, but over time it certainly will, and when threads like this appear on the forum, everybody will say "email acbl@bridgebase.com!!!".

Boards can be adjusted after play is over, as long as tourney is still listed The problem is the opposing players will usually leave once the tournament results window pops up, so it can be quite hard for the TD to follow up on anything. At this time (I believe that) BBO does not provide a feature for TDs to review all chat and bidding/alerts as they occured on a board, so they have to sort things out by asking a bunch of questions. Sometimes the only time you realize you may have been "fixed" is when the whole deal shows up, and then its usually too late. If you realize there might be a problem before the hand is over, you can stop playing and call for the TD, but the clock is running, the TD is often busy, and you might not get the board in.

Here’s a cute one, and its recent but sadly I can’t say it was yesterday. The bidding goes 1NT(14-17 by me)-Pass-2♣-Double-2♥-Pass-2NT-All Pass The lead is a ♥ and both dummy and I have nice ♣s so what’s going on. Just to be safe, I ask RHO privately what their double was. No answer. Ask, no answer, and we are on the clock. Finally call TD. Ask TD if they could find out what the double was intended to show. TD reports that double is for the other suits. Later in the play I find out that "other suits" was a 5-5-2-1 hand. Not sure if I would describe that as the “other suits” but perhaps that is what RHO told the TD, who then told me. Who knows. Should I have not bothered the TD, assumed the double was lead directional of ♣s and then tried to get a ruling at the end. Who knows, but this was the last board and trying to get a ruling on the last board when it is over is next to impossible. Should we have been told what the double was when it was made, so we could perhaps double them in a 5-2 fit. Who knows, but certainly the TD didn't follow up on that (but to be fair we didn't ask either). Oh well, on to the next tourney. The wild wild NESWs.

It’s like the wild west out there. All this from just yesterday: 2NT-Pass-3♣(Alert, no explain)-Pass-3NT(nothing) Get the explain that 3♣ is asking for a 4 or 5 card major (good that didn’t just use convention name). Decide to assume that 3NT shows no four or five card major and go with that. Don’t call the TD since not a big deal. Later I open 1♠. Bidding goes 1♠-Double-Pass-3♣ all pass. Takeout doubler has ♠AKTxx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣xxx. Maybe this is one of those pairs who double with any opening bid. Who knows, but let’s not bother the TD. Next it goes 1♠-Pass-1NT-2♥(me)-Double-Pass-3NT. Double is explained as “pen”, and the “pen” 1♠ bidder has a 5-3-3-2 18 count with Kx of hearts. Responder who did not pass the penalty double has Axx of hearts. Perhaps responder assumed the double was takeout. Who knows. Not worth calling the TD even though I assume the wrong things and make the wrong lead, since the double could be meant as penalty even if holding just a doubleton. In the tournament lobby yesterday a player before or after each tournament is complaining about the online couples “sitting side by side” and always taking the longest to play. Nobody says anything, and the tournament lobby doesn't seem to be concerned about zero tolerance. Paranoia seems to be growing, and nobody has started another round of worrying about the “Instant Message” pairs. Since there are no overall awards for these tournaments the amounts of masterpoints are negligible, but players are competitive and paying $, so there is a prevailing feeling that things are not fair at all. A player asks me about the ACBL games going on two other sites (January ACBL bulletin, page 9). No idea, and likely will not have the same back-to-back schedule that the BBO ACBL has. Still you know what they are thinking. In short, based on just yesterday, there is much misinformation and a shortage of enjoyment.

"You need to demonstrate that you would have been able to achieve a better score if you had not received incorrect information. I've seen nothing in your discussion that suggests this." I don't need to demonstrate I would have been able to achieve a better score, since I'm not appealing the actual result - tournament was over and done with when it was over. The point of the thread was two-fold: 1) Point out that FD can actually increase mis-information chances, when used without checking the whole darn database. To help spot these our pre-alert now includes this: if your partnership is using a new style cc, please self-alert and self-explain any bids that have a different meaning than what we see on the screen 2) Try to obtain improvements in how BBO ACBL TDs are handling possible misinformation cases. At this time their overall track record is below the local club directors, and miles away from the OKb TDs. However some ACBL BBO TDs are quite excellent so it seems to me if all the TDs could be given the correct information, then the excellent TDs would remain excellent while the less-than-local-club-directors could improve a little.

"Take them up with memphis, please. we're trying to run a club game here. If you want to change ACBL policy, start at the top. " Will do so - still a shame to follow this policy "We run several hundred tournaments every day, each about 8-12 boards long. Some rulings are going to be incorrect. " The point of this thread was not to correct this particular ruling - I could care less about the actual result - the point is to decrease the number of incorrect rulings over time, or at least not see them rise. At this time there is no process for improvement. Ignoring problems is not the right way to handle this. Paid TDs need to know how to handle possible misinformation cases. "The FD thing is very new. IMO, each pair should be responsible for the quality/accuracy of its own convention card. But IMO, the FD software should be easier to use. So the customer who uses FD is caught, as is the TD. We'll sort it all out over time. The laws of bridge never envisioned a "talking convention card" driven by a database. Who is responsible when a complex third-party database labeled 'STANDARD' assigns an odd meaning to a sequence?" At this time, nobody has told me that the FD software is easier to use. Personally I fought with it for several hours before parking it. I see little adopting in tournaments. However it is still early. "Relax. No need to scream-and-leap every time someone does something that is imperfect. We're pushing cards around, not calibrating micrometers. There is no scream-and-leap every time here - if I reported every possible incorrect ruling and problem in tournaments there would be a zillion more threads - I post only selected ones trying to obtain improvements over time. Yes, you are pushing cards around, and yes, you are not calibrating micrometers, but you do need to have process improvement in how the game is run. Pushing cards is not enough for paid TDs - can't these workers be given the right information to do their job better for all of us?

The dialogue you quoted did NOT occur, but something like it should have. So I'm glad that my pretend TD did give the correct ruling.

Psyches are not prohibited in ACBL tournaments - however a new ACBL policy, when enforced, has the net result of forcing established partnerships not to psych, since once several pyschs are recorded they are deemed to have an agreement to pysch, which is then deemed to be illegal, although this is not following the bridge laws (I'm using the ACBL spelling of psychs, and not psyches). In the hand in question, responder is free to make a negative double psych. However opener would then have to answer why there was no support of spades. So in this case it is about misinformation, and how TDs should follow up on it. Unlike the cheese dialogue (btw you can click on the cheese link to get the Monty script) most of the discussion should take place between the TD and the players who may have misinformed their opponents, and likely did so not on purpose. Player: Opponent said they had 4♠ in bidding but only had 2 TD: Will check and get back to you TD->Opp: You made a negative double but did not have 4♠s and did not alert - what was your double? Opponent: <Explains double and method> TD->Opp: Your new style cc is set and it says double shows 4♠s - could you set your cc to reflect your agreements? Opponent: <Explains how they will have a cc to reflect agreements at some point> TD->Both Opps: You may have [inadvertently] misinformed your opponents - I'll look at the hand and determine if the result was fair given this misinformation TD->Table: I've looked at the hand involving the negative double without 4♠s - first, please ensure your bids conform to your cc as our tournament rules state - second, there was misinformation [,but it was inadvertent]. Third, looking at the hands I don't see a strong reason to adjust the board. However if there is such a reason please let me know and I'll study it some more. In short, if operating a cheese shop have a little cheese in stock, especially since the ACBL is expanding their online games to two more sites.

Answered wrong question - ignore/delete this

Sometimes trying to get assistance from a TD is like this: Monty Python's Flying Circus - "Cheese Shop" Player: Bidder said he had 4♠s but did not TD: He had extra values Player: But his partner had 4♠s but did not bid them TD: Didn't have enough values Player: But their cc says double shows 4♠s TD: Nobody uses those cc's Player: But we defended as if they had what they told us TD: Yes, but their other cc said all their doubles show values Player: So can you look at this? TD: Normally, sir, yes. Today the van broke down.

Opponents are using the BBO Advanced "full disclosure" convention card. Responder has: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakht64dat9872c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] opposite Opener's: [hv=d=w&v=n&s=sakht64dat9872c32]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Bidding is 1♣-1♥-Double-3♦(Bergen, constructive)-Double-3♥-4♦-Pass-5♦ When 1♥ is doubled, full disclosure tells us that the double shows exactly 4♠s. When opener shows up with 4♠s and responder with only 2 I call the director. Tournament Director tells me "his hand is such that he really can double showing a bigger hand." I point out they are using "full disclosure" and that two way negative doubles require an alert TD tells me that "his cc says value showing" I point out that the "full disclosure" cc said responder had exactly 4♠s TD says "don't think anyone knows how to use those cards yet." When I ask opponents why cards did not match their cc, TD says "glen play instead of teaching pls" After tournament is over opponent tells me: "we are trying to use new system" Not sure if they meant new bridge system or trying to use the Full Disclosure system. If nobody knows how to use Full Disclosure, can BBO please provide the ACBL BBO tournaments the option to turn these off for the complete tournament? Otherwise can the ACBL BBO TDs please help out in situations where the cc does not match what is happening at the table?

Several of the keys to the NFL approach: First they are willing to admit the referees are wrong: NFL: Referee was wrong on interception Second, they are willing to improve: Q&A: Mike Pereira, NFL supervisor of officials Third, they distribute the correct information to help get better in the short term: Fourth, they work hard on the long term : Officiating a major source of contention during NFL playoffs

I was playing in an Ottawa sectional in the early/mid 80s – Mark and Boris would play any tournament anywhere near them, so they had come down from Montreal for the weekend, and were at the very next table in the Open Pairs. They finished two boards and passed them to us, and then when we had completed the same two boards, Mark rushed over and started to talk to me at a mile-a-minute (km-a-minute in Canada) about the super complex endplay and squeeze that he had found on the hand. At that point I knew: - Mark was willing to talk to anybody about the game, even young want-to-bees; - Mark was highly skilled, and even back then saw things in the cards that most others could not see; - Mark was super passionate about the game. He never lost any of this. He’ll be sadly missed by all of us.

I'm very sad to report that Mark Molson, member of the Canuck 95 team, passed away suddenly yesterday.