McBruce

I think Swiss Teams could become EXTREMELY popular on BBO, nearly as popular as ACBL Regional and NABC knockouts are -- with some fairly major additions to the software. I don't know how feasible it is to implement something like this. I suppose it would be possible for a "Commissioner" to oversee it all, but it would be a lot of work that software could do quite easily. Here's what I envision: --any chat room can be used as a Swiss Team's team registration page: get all of your team members (maximum eight, to make it easier to find players to play) together at one time in a chat room, the team captain clicks a button, everyone in the room clicks a button to agree to be members of that team, and if there are at least six members agreeing (four or five would make it hard to get everyone online at the same time), the team is registered. --chat rooms can also be used to change the team captain, add a new member to a team or delete a member (the captain and three other members must be present and agree to the change). --the time you register determines which "timezone" you are in, with the 24 hour clock being divided into four six-hour periods, so that your preferred time is never more than three hours from a compromise time between your team and an opponent's preferred time. No BBO member can be on two teams in the same timezone, but can participate on multiple teams in different timezones. --once you register, you are placed at the bottom of the list for your timezone. New rounds start each calendar month in groups of six teams. (The lowest two groups will be 4 and 3, 5 and 3, 5 and 4, or 6 and 4.) Each team must play one 12-board match against each of its divisional opponents during the following month. Each team captain is responsible for contacting the other team captains and arranging a suitable date and time. Once both captains agree on a date and time, the match is scheduled and must be played on that date. --matches are scored in IMPs and the division standings are kept in victory points. Barometer matches are not allowed. --if there are only three members of a team logged on at the scheduled time of a match, or during a match, a random sub must be used. If there are only two members of a team logged on, no boards can be played and if a delay of more than 15 minutes results, the offending team loses by default. --unplayed and unscheduled matches are scheduled by the BBO software for a random date and a compromise time within the timezone when there are seven days left in the month. Such matches cannot be rescheduled. This, and the provision below that says that teams that are at fault in not completing their matches go down to the bottom, forces team captains to get their matches scheduled early. --if a match is not completed, the offending side gets zero victory points (if both sides do not show, both get zero VPs). The non-offending side gets the greater of these possibilities: a) 60% of the possible Victory Points b) the non-offending side's average VPs in matches played c) the inverse of offending side's average VPs in matches played d) the VPs based on the score when a partially completed match was stopped Options b) and c) are not finalized until both sides have completed all of their matches. --participants agree to Full Disclosure of agreements and posted convention cards for each pair. Emergency subs are limited to BB-Basic or BB-Advanced. --disputes over explanations and other things: perhaps there is a way we can set up a forum here to debate these questions, hear testimony from both sides, and even vote on the best resolution, or whether the plaintiff has no case and should be penalized in VPs for wasting our time! --at the end of the month, when the final standings are in, in each division: a) all teams are re-ranked from top to bottom within their division, 1 to 6, 7 to 12, etc. b) teams which won their division are accoladed on the BBO website and in the news window. c) newly signed up teams are added to the bottom of the list in the order that they signed up. d) relegation and promotion: two teams from each division are promoted and two relegated. (The exceptions are the top and bottom divisions, from which three teams go down or up.) In each middle division, the top team moves up two divisions, the second team moves up one division, the sixth team moves down two divisions, and the fifth team moves down one division. e) teams which did not complete their schedules and are the offending side in at least one match are dropped to the bottom, below even the newly signed up teams. f) All teams are re-ranked into new divisions for the next month, and play begins again. --if feasible, semifinals and final between the winners of each timezone could be played each month. OK, rain down the comments.... :)

Dealing as I do in only SAYC tournaments, I may be out of my league here, but I find "12+pc,4=h" to be woefully inadequate in describing a system where 1♣ shows a heart suit. I don't think the people given the explanation should be expected to find their way through a minefield of abbreviations which may be different for every country and every city and every club and every player. Based on that, I would probably give A+/A-. I don't think it's fair to expect South to protect himself when the first explanation is about equivalent to a verbal explanation while munching on a large chuck of peanut butter sandwich. A player truely interested in fairly disclosing his agreements would type "artificial; 4+hearts" -- not some near-random group of symbols. And if 1♠ is non forcing I would think that would be an alert, because nobody expects this auction to end there.

The reason you have to send it to him, Fred, instead of simply directing him to the Microsoft page to get it, is that there is no longer any such page. Another good reason for creating a small bbo.ttf file that installs with the software with any special symbols needed.

I don't think Golfacer has a problem with predealt hands, or he wouldn't be one of the leaders in Alphabet Points, where we always use predealt hands, and in fact we announce during the game the par score, the score obtained by four high-level computer players (using JACK, the world champion of computer bridge), and the double-dummy tricks available, once all tables have completed a board. It's not that difficult to do--get a dealer program to deal random hands, have a freeeware program like gibtrix analyze them for double-dummy possibilities, and have a program like JACK or GIB or Bridge Baron play the hands at a high skill level to get results for the players to compare to. I do it twice a week.

The number of boards and pace of the tourney would be a good thing to add to the sub dialog box so people would know how long they are expected to be in as a sub.

"My conclusion after reading all the posts about ACBL tournaments is that the ACBL wants to run SAYC tournaments but since that is not possible..." Of course it is possible. I run two a week. Our Unit ran a SAYC-only individual at a sectional. "...they try to harrass the players that deviate from SAYC reaching some interpretations of the laws that I would describe as comic." Such as? If you are referring to the situation discussed in this thread, tell us: why is it wrong for a sponsoring organization to make a rule saying that you must have a posted convention card? What's wrong with specifying a default convention card for those who cannot be bothered to explain their agreements? What's wrong with the TD assuming that a pair who displays the default card has agreed to play it? Why shouldn't players who give explanations that are 'jokes,' or players who don't give explanations at all, be harrassed? "... I think there're a lot of different things that can be done to improve the quality of the tournaments before even thinking about system regulations, it's a pitty they put all the effort in silly stuff." I don't think it is silly at all to make rules that force people to post a convention card.

"I don't think it is at all fair to rag on the doubler with a void for doubling. Anyone would double this auction." Not me. I have a partner who can double if he wants to. When I suspect the wheels have come off in an auction, I don't double based on what partner should have, because what I expect partner to have is based on what the opponents are claiming to have, and if their wheels are off, my prediction of what partner should have is also going to be off. If they're in the wrong suit and partner really has the trump stack but not enough to double, we're going to get a good score by playing 4♥ undoubled down a few. Doubling allows them to escape to 4♠ which might not go for as much or might even make if partner has nothing and they have magic shape. "Next, if psyches are legal here (as they should be), there is a question of south's final pass. 3♥ would be game try, partner rejects, 4♥ is now a slam try. So passing 4♥ might be second round control of hearts, or soemthing. But the question is why choose hearts with longer spades. This is a question that makes it looks like south "fielded" the psyche. This might require furhter questioning of the ns pair experience and history." 3♥ looks like a natural call to me based on South's response of only 3♠. If 3♥ was a help suit or long suit game try, South has an AWFULLY good eight count for his original raise, and I expect most would bid 4♠ like a shot. I would ask, but would expect the response that 3♥ was natural, a second suit. And when North bids 4♥, South can envision a hand with 6-5 or maybe bad5-good5. With 97654/AQJ73/K7/A or 97654/AQJT73/void/A6 North might open 1♠ to avoid losing a possible spade fit. If that is a possibility, wouldn't you pass as South after the double and let partner decide what to do?

Both relate to accidentally specifying the wrong file when you create a tournament. 1. If the tournament definition of banned players is changed before the tournament begins, and as a result of the change a player already signed up is found on the new banned list, the player is removed from the list of players signed up. I loaded the wrong file in tonight by mistake and a player on my banned list signed up. I could not find a way to get rid of the player, who we will call X. (Asking X to voluntarily leave and threatening to sub X out in round 1 if X refused, would simply lead to argument, given the behavior X showed during the incident which got X on the banned list.) (Luckily, the player was responsible for a long pause on Board 1, so I got a sub quickly and solved the problem.) 2. If a file containing bridge hands is loaded up as the tournament rules, it should be rejected. I accidentally loaded the .lin file for the pre-analyzed deals once. Anyone clicking on the Tournament Rules during the 20 seconds it took me to correct my mistake would have seen the deals about to be played.

From the auction alone we have the words DOUBLE SHOT screaming at any experienced TD in neon lights. The player with a void in trumps makes a clear penalty double (it cannot be takeout since he failed to double hearts earlier), and then calls for the Director when the contract makes. "first of all the opps complained that psyches were not legal in tournaments..." Strike one to the complainers then. Note that they believe not just that psyches are illegal in this tournament, but that psyches are illegal in all tournaments! This is a truly disturbing trend. "...North then apologized to the table for the ‘misclick’..." Fair enough. "The opps went on to say a misclick should have been alerted." More plaintiffs who don't know the rules! If you require an alert for a misclick, what's next? Alerting when you realize you should have made a different call? Folks, we need to realize that when the TD is called (assuming the TD is competant), it is not a game of "throw enough mud and see if enough of it sticks." People who make up the rules as they blow the whistle are never going to get the benefit of any doubt from a good TD. If I am called to the table here, I look for evidence that N-S have a prior knowledge about this type of auction. The bull about the psyches and the alertable misclicks are to me simply irritants that ensure E-W are assumed to be twits instead of fair-minded bridge players. "I know why a misclick should not be alerted, I am not completely clear on why a misclick should not be announced at the table." Because it is UI to partner. In online bridge you might send a private message to the opponents saying that you had misclicked. But it is not obligatory to do so. I see no evidence in the auction that South has any special knowledge that needs to be divulged to the opponents. Had East passed South would be under some serious pressure, but when East made his idiotic double South was off the hook. Result stands, E-W are very close to a procedural penalty and at the very least should be sternly warned that their complaint is completely without merit.

Font selection (TNR, Arial, or Verdana) works within a session but is not being saved, unless I am missing some new way of saving it. It might be best to wait with the launch of the customizable colours option until you have a few dozen 'skins' that people can view online and download. The BBO Skins Gallery! :)

Online? :) However will we determine evidence, unless a pair is sitting at two computers in the same room?

I agree with the idea that a partnership agreement has to be 'special' in some way before it should be alertable. This is 40B again: A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. From this I infer the following rule: A bid need only be alerted if: --it is based on a partnership understanding --an opposing pair may be misled unless the agreement is disclosed with an alert (or whatever the sponsoring organization requires) The responsibility for deciding whether an agreement is 'special' enough that an opposing pair may be misled, ultimately rests with the Director, so careful players should alert almost all of their partnership agreements. Anytime you don't alert you are liable to an adjustment, but only if the opponents are clearly damaged. It would take a really exceptional situation for me as TD to adjust because a pair alerted when they shouldn't have. Players take inferences from alerts and especially from the abscence of alerts -- and they shouldn't: they should ask. But, one does not need to alert psychic bids, since there is no partnership agreement. One does not need to alert many of the trivial understandings that opponents should be asking about, including many of the examples given in this thread.

How about this instead: You MUST self alert: --opening bids differing significantly from SAYC by partnership agreement --bids that are artificial by partnership agreement --partnership agreements that a novice might not expect Adjustments will be given only if ALL of these are true: a] there is an infraction in alerting or explaining b] there is clear damage resulting directly from the infraction c] the circumstances reveal that the non-offenders could not have protected themselves by asking for further information (required in all doubtful cases)

(The consensus seems to be that we let the result stand, that East's double with such an offensive hand was a bit daft and that the only remaining argument is whether 2♠ requires an alert. Thank goodness nobody is arguing that E-W should escape their bad score because 2♠ was not alerted.) This deal seems to me to illustrate the biggest problem with alerts: players think they have the right to assume things about opponent's hands because they did NOT alert. Alerts are not meant to be either-or. The lack of an alert, when it seems one might well be required, does not allow you to make assumptions that the hand is a specific hand that doesn't require an alert. Playing online there is no excuse for not protecting yourself by simply asking in private for an explanation of 2♠ when in your mind it could have two meanings. West had every opportunity to do so on this hand. Really, in an online situation there is NEVER an excuse for claiming damage from a failure to alert. It is ALWAYS possible to get the information you need from private chat without any transfer of UI, except perhaps the extra time needed. You can even ask both players and see if they both understand the bid. (The BBO option to click on the bid and get an explanation is very much inferior from a Laws perspective. On this hand, surely East knows that 2♠ is not a natural spade bid. If East clicks to get an explanation it is like East asking for the benefit of his partner, which is illegal.) If you believe 2♠ should be alerted only because it is not a natural bid, it follows that if South means this as a psyche (to avoid defending 4♠ in the long run) he must alert it. Is that what you want out of your alerting rules? It's not what I want. The word 'alert' is not in the Laws. The only reference is Law 40B: B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. The first priority for alerting therefore HAS to be a partnership agreement, not whether the bid is natural/artificial. Sponsoring organizations that rule that the first priority should be natural vs artificial are out of bounds of Law 40A: A. Right to Choose Call or Play A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

My first decision on this hand would be to ensure that play continues and a result is recorded. "Please continue playing and I will look at the board and adjust if I feel there has been damage." Especially in a clocked tournament, that always has to be the first consideration. However, it wouldn't take me too long to decide as others have: no adjustment. East's reasons are heavily tinged with the self-interest bug, that curious bridge-player's disease that makes it impossible for us to see logic once we sense that we might have been damaged. In fact, if we look at East's reasons in reverse order we can see how clearly he is grasping at straws... 2♠ should show at least a stopper. Maybe for you, but there is no law that tells the opponents to play your way. West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted. Perhaps, but this assumes that 2♠ requires an alert. N/S bid incorrectly. South was too weak for 2♠. We're adjusting because the opponents bid incorrectly now? We'll need one TD for every table! 2♠ must be alerted. This is the only reason that some have found to consider an adjustment, but it is still completely wrong. Whatever alert rules you play under, an alert should only be made when there is a partnership agreement about a bid. There is no evidence that N-S had an agreement about the cue-bid other than the obvious one that it is forcing. Note that North did not assume heart support; he bid 3♦. North did not assume any kind of strength; after bidding the forced 3♦, he passed throughout. There is no evidence of an agreement here at all, at all, at all. Therefore, there is no need to alert. The problem that a TD has to envision is that the East player is not going to be happy with the decision. That is why my method would be to explain to everyone involved that my initial decision is no adjustment, but that I will look at it later and make a final decision then, perhaps after the tournament ends--but no further arguments will be considered. Now the players will continue and you can postpone the predictable argument with East until the end, when you can handle a frank exchange of views without Director calls and other nuisances getting in the way.

The link is nice, but there are many good reasons to buy the print version. Among them: 1. Number one rule of f2f Directing: Carry the book with you. Open it when you are not 150% sure of a ruling. (If you are sure, make the ruling, take the book back to the desk, and then look it up, just in case.) 2. Even if you don't direct f2f, it is a good reference whenever someone here refers to a Law. Faster than waiting for the link to load and clicking again one or two times to find the Law referenced. (Even worse if you persist with Microsoft Internet Explorer and cannot-yet-do tabbed browsing, and have the forums and the Laws in the same window...)

I suspect we may have a vote here for tournaments that bar kibitzers... ;)

We have seen on this forum the lengths to which players will go in order to defend their ideas that everyone must always have their bid. Some people see a psyche or even a shaded bid, and immediately go psychotic. No TD can stop their arguments by quoting the Laws: they want blood! I would never penalize a pair for simply calling the TD. But this pair, after getting what I assume was the normal result on the hand, complained for four exchanges of messages -- read the post -- before giving up. That, as I said, is close to the decency line. Once the TD has made a decision, you don't continue arguing. The fact that people do -- frequently -- is partly because BBO TDs have no middle ground -- we have to either boot them or put up with them. A quarter-board for ignoring a warning to stop arguing and get back to playing would go a long way with some of these goons. A Director call certainly should lead to penalties if the Director's decision is not accepted by an abusive player. You cannot make a blanket rule that says a TD call must never lead to procedural penalties. You're missing my point. It's not the Director call that concerns me. It is the attitude that says "I will report you if you don't bid/play as I think you should", combined with the refusal to accept the TD's decision that you just don't have a case here, that leads me to wish we could whack them with something less than a red card.

Another (this must be request number 6,025 or so) reason that we need to be able to tack on procedural and disciplinary penalties to a pair's score. This pair made their game and then complained about the light opener. Unless they have some reason to believe that the opposing pair had an AGREEMENT that this was a possible opener, this is a frivolous director call, and should be given an immediate warning at least, with a quarter-board penalty for a second similar offense. If the partner of the opener passed an 8-count, that would be reasonable grounds to suspect that they had agreed on light openers and had not disclosed this. But in this hand the opponents made a game. I doubt the fourth hand had anywhere near 8 HCP. Anyone whose comments reveal that they are more concerned with the opponents getting a penalty than the TD restoring equity deserves a disciplinary penalty. An exchange of four messages is close to the line. Once you explain that it is legal to violate a partnership agreement, that should be the end of the matter. Sadly, many players will not give up arguing. All TDs have seen this type of harrassment at one time or another, and you have to put your foot down and tell the protesters that the decision has been made and is final, and any more arguing will lead to penalties. Except that we can't make the penalties stick. The only thing we can do is toss them. C'mon BBO. It's crystal clear in Law 91A that this is part of the game.

Some things that I noticed from txt2lin when updating my CoC's: --brackets () don't work. The right bracket gets transferred ok but the left one turns into a space. Use square brackets instead []. --if you have a text editor that can display line numbers for you (like TextPad), use it! Each page is 16 lines long, so pages of info can be spaced to occupy lines 1-16, 17-32, etc. It would be nice if users could use the keyboard [pageup] and [pagedown] to scroll through these files from within BBO. The instruction to hit the > key (which can be some ways away with maximal chat areas) is a bit confusing.

I agree that the strange bidding and play of one hand is not enough to prove cheating, but I think that North is also a suspect here. Partner has responded 6NT missing two aces. With both missing aces another bid is certainly more reasonable here than pass. Exchange the A♦ and a small heart for East's two red queens. It's still a 1♦ opener, and if partner thinks he can make 6NT opposite this, surely with both aces 7NT is the optimum spot. I would hope that both North and South were put on a list of players to watch for. Should more hands like this come in, I would consider a suspension. I'm a little concerned that inquiry is leaning so far to take the side of the jumper here. Nobody in his right mind would bid 6NT with this hand unless they saw all four hands. There is significant evidence of that here. If you decide not to bar this pair based on one hand, OK, but I hope you have at least taken the player names for future such actions. If this had happened in a f2f tournament, we wouldn't be letting it go without a player memo.

To get back to the original point (if I can remember it... :D ), here is a pertinent question: If a player in a pay tournament asks to be replaced in round one because of a silly rule that he will not play under, and one that was not publicized, is there a way to get BBO to issue a refund? Such a procedure might involve some risk on the protester's fault--if an investigation showed that the rule was clearly available before the tourney began, or not contrary to the Laws, the protester might face a short suspension. The pay-tourney TD might risk losing some of his 'take' if it was found that a rule was not made public, or was contrary to the Laws. A procedure like this would dissuade pay tournament TDs from making rules that skirt the Laws and keeping them secret until the cash box was locked.

Happy to report that the following tournament in the series, Tuesday night's game, went smoothly, with no misbehavior, no attempts to quit, and no slow players. I knew this would happen. :)

LAW 80 SPONSORING ORGANIZATION A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. LAW 40 PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions... Under these two Laws, and assuming that the only reasonable definition of sponsoring organization in the case of online tournaments run by a BBO TD is that the TD is the sponsoring organization, it seems that these laws allow a TD to run a tournament under any kind of systemic restrictions, and stay within the bounds of the Laws, provided the rules are published or announced. Psyches are a different matter, but a TD would be within his rights to assume a concealed partnership agreement if a player opened a disallowed convention and then his partner bid as though the convention was being used.

4. Wise TDs who realize that in a short tournament many pairs will try to psyche their way to victory, because nobody wins a short tournament with 60%. 5. Frustrated TDs who have tried in the past to determine whether the psyching pair has a concealed partnership agreement and gets only angry responses from the pair that 'psyches are legal.' 6. Suspicious TDs who look at the results of their tournaments and notice that a certain pair's frequent psyches never seem to lead them astray...