jkdood

Thanks Uday for taking he time to prepare and post a thoughtful complete response. I may not agree with all your perspectives, but I appreciate the sincere hard work and effort and reply.

Reminder: At the start of this thread, it did say: "Before anyone notes the bid out of turn, NORTH opens 1NT"

I like to play in the silly BBO free mini's with random partners, especially INDIVs, silly ME I guess. Anyway, One particular TD there holds many games, and at times that I like to play. On one hand first board of an INDIV - I doubled the opps, who were headed for down 5 -1100 For reasons I have no real clue of, my pard as defender conceded Down-2 +300 at trick 3, I think he didn't like a card I played or return I made who knows? The opp of course agreed quickly for a great score for them, maybe 88% matchpoints. I messaged TD that my pard just did what he did and said I don't think he is even trying or being serious about the tourney, which just started. Please help. The TD came to the table and I think conversed with my pard and then ejected him. Of course the deal was over and a new hand/pard was coming but anyway I messaged TD: Thank you, will you consider an adjustment please? NO reply. On the last deal of the mini I re-asked. No reply but I get a message that the Board was NOW ADJUSTED to MAKING (instead of down 2 300) for a ZERO% for me. I message TD several inquries such as "why" "please explain" "hand was +1100 but became +300 because partner didn't play for real and now you change it to making? Please explain." NO reply. SO I reported all of the above to BBO. NO reply. BUT this TD blacklisted me from ALL of his many mini's. SO I ask: How are these TDs selected, monitored, and what am I missing (besides good and fair rulings, politeness, respect, accountability from the management, and entry to games i would still like to play in????)

Ok Thanks mycroft and others FINAL POST (by me) on this nonsense (Sorry folks) The first solution - changing my profile, only affected what I saw, the smiley went away and the " b" showed but it was a Capital B This means other readers without changing THEIR profile settings, still see the annoying smiley, which adversely impacts readability (or enjoyability in some cases) (I changed my setting back to YES, the default (most will have) and the smiley Came Back) The second soution seems best, for obvious reasons. Thanks.

OK now a) using b) mycrofts solution (test3)

Ha ha seems that a) works BUT B) auto-changes it to a capital (test2)

First test: a) I went to my profile B) I changed the images setting to NO

Testing paren + b + paren: (B) paren + space + b + paren: ( b ) b + paren: B) B + space + paren: b )

Well this is seriously off topic, but maybe timely: I am glad it is not just me that posts (a) Point 1 ( Bee ) Point 2 and the Bee in parens shows up as a smiley. Very annoying, I suppose it would be nice if the forum had a built-in edit just like some do for unacceptable 4-letter words and such. Anyway, what is the trick (if any) to make ( bee ) come out as desired?

"M" :)

There are of course countless hands that will support the outcome success (or failure) of either 5C or 3N. I chose 3N because on frequency I think it not only more likely that scattered values in the non-C suits will ensure 3N, there's the known difficulty in defending 3N... starting with choice of opening lead, which could be low from an Ace that would not occur in a suit defense, or just not optimal for the defense. I know my example hand is no better than yours, but just for the heck of it, imagine: Axx JTxx QJxx xx or Axxx JTxx Q9xx x or similar. If the club K is offside, 5C has no chance against any opp with an awake brain. Yet 3N could very well see a spade lead, perhaps FROM the offside K, and be cold at this juncture. For more details, talk to Hamman:-)

Re: "point is that pulling 3NT isn't inherently illogical" I DO agree with that, and I only suggested living with 3N is my pref. I also think winning an imp-based National Championship 2 days ago suggests your judgement is far from "inherently illogical" in these matters (Not that your judgements weren't well-respected before that:-)

Sure 5C (or 3 or 4) could be right and it is imps. And 3NT (and I won't quote Hamman) could be right. But although I have an extra club and maybe short a HCP or even 2 Pard effectively took the responsibility to stop/help-stop all 3 suits without anything specific from me, and I would just let it play there if they feel it's their most descriptive call/best spot. (stiff d: I could have one less club and AK dub of H and have 0 surprises and pard's aware of this, and maybe the T of dia is large card today!) (PS - the opps not bidding diamonds is also somewhat reassuring )

"If either opponent has AKT9x(x) of spades" As I think Josh accurately pointed out, the opps did NOT overcall 1S. This makes such a holding very very unlikely and so it's discarded as a worry.

Re: "After I've shown 16-18, ♣ hand I dont think 3nt holding xxxx ♠ and an opening hand is the smartest bid but then Im not an expert." It's good policy to play a 3C rebid for about 15 HCP with a decent 7 card suit. Most experts reverse with better hands, often making up a reverse without the perfect shape. Of course, on BBO anyway reverses are a tact that many players (non-expert or so-called BBO experts) don't understand well so tread carefully. I don't hate 3N but I think 3D caters to both questions about strain (when spades are the chink in the NT armor) and level (when pard has a max and slam is a good spot.) I also don't hate 1C but after choosing that and then 3C - 3N I don't see how I can move again despite some "worthy" suggestions to the contrary.

I have tried to refrain from commenting since this situation has bit me in the emotional and disciplinary arse in the past when I either make a table observation like Art did, or in an ACBL setting, get ruled against by an AC ruling such as the Detroit case. At least in live settings, I am encouraged by the new ACBL policy permitting the "I reserve the right to call" comment. Too often it was let's say inconvenient or taken-offensively to call a TD right away, and of course, not calling and having drama develop later when UI seemingly has had a role, gets real ugly. Sure, there are somewhat-unaware less-experienced players (who don't know their full ethical obligations or are oblivious to the BIT) or someone changing the baby's diaper (online) but even a "I reserve.." comment on BBO seems to have merit. If it later develops UI has a possible role and the BIT hand is like the one above, well: I don't think assuming he was watching BBO-movie cuts it. What's more interesting I think, and troubling for me, is that there often seems to be "significant doubt" as to what the BIT suggests and what the LFLA is. The Detroit case is a prime example. This case is somewhat similar. Maybe I sound like Bobby Wolff from the 70's when he sparred with ACs over this, but I personaly feel that the NON-offending side should ALWAYS get the "benefit of the doubt" ruling in these matters, and the offending side should (a) have the burden to appeal, and ( b ) learn their methods, their alert and ethical obligations, and to bid pr pass in tempo in situations where pard may be influenced. A few too many adverse adjustments and they may well improve. If they must give up the game because of all the bridge lawyering, well, it will be a purer game with them staying home and so-be-it if we need their income to flourish as a sport. I know many think that the bridge lawyers should be the ones staying home, and that double-shots, too many director calls, and table-observations like Art made are the worse possible thing for the health of the game. But until there is a more tasteful and acceptable way to educate the offenders and stop the unfairness that results when offenders effectively continue to "get away with it" I'm with Bobby.

So sure sounds like there is plenty time for the director to issue a ruling, go check your notes if you feel unsure you've been ethical, and then still get justice delivered without bothering an AC.

I wouldn't rule out KJxx x KQx Jxxxx or such for pard, but if declarer only has 2 diamonds he will play an honor not low (as from Ajx) so yeah, how does pard with the K of d know if declarer has AQx or AQ if the Q is played on your lead at T2? The 6 works there for sure. But if pard has Kxxx x KQx Jxxxx and chose a reasonable spade, a diamond back isn't so great. Wow, good question!! Not sure there's an answer other than an 8 or 9 and let pard work out the guess (of what to return) from declarer's tempo and other inferences maybe ? After all, the 8 or 9 does not PRECLUDE 98xx or such. Does it?

I really don't know what the (probably secret) official rules are, but it seems in practice that there really is no such thing is a FINAL ruling. That's if the definition of final is that the TD or TDs cannot change it without the AC. TD's have given rulings before, and many players have heard the ruling, the logic, and then said something like: "BUT did you KNOW the opps play Flannery?" or something else logically relevant to a particular deal not mentioned earlier... ...IF that or other comment might provide a new slant, I have seen TDs revise their ruling. Maybe FINAL is after dinner break commences, or time-related only? That being said, i would think someone in MRosenbreg's position could tell the TD about something like a systemic alert issue, and the TD could revise (if appropriate) what might have seemed like their FINAL ruling. This would surely make more sense than accepting the ruling IN ONE'S FAVOR and taking it to AC to get it revised (to be ethical.)

IF I elect to play a diamond, I must consider South might have AJx, and can't afford for pard to win and play it back. So 2nd high from a worthless holding, or the 9, both work for me. Low to show strong-interest-in-continuing scares me. Pard might anyway infer my length from South's play and his own holding, and play it back if/when right.

So Law 16 DOES say: Offending Side For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorised. A player of the offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorised information Hmmn, I guess it is AI for South that his partner must pass throughout but it is UI that his partner either has (a) 1NT opening or ( b ) 1NT response to 1D ? Did I interpret that correctly THIS try? So a logical "guess" with the South hand supposedly knowing nothing about North's hand type could be anything... and LF LA is surely NOT to allow 3N or higher. OK I slap myself and take back my unseemly observations:-)

I dunno, there are lotsa treatments that go undocumented - perhaps because it is considered "expert standard" at least 21st-century... ...reminds me of this auction, matchpoints: LHO 1D RHO 1S LHO 1NT p p to you, X "Back in the Day" this auction's balancing double always showed good values that always included some noteworthy spade holding - maybe AKJx Qxx Qxx Axx - so that a spade lead was strongly suggested should pard leave 1Nx in. I'll omit sandwich-NT issues to save space, but nowadays at equal-NV or even Fav it seems this double could well be on Qx J9xx Axx KJTx Maybe it's suicidal and I wouldn't call it standard, but I would allow today's casual expert partner to maybe balance with something like the above. (If you think the above is an immediate double I'll take a J away) And I would respond accordingly. The reason I'm reminded of this is because I became aware a few years back that Levin-Weinstein had an explicit agreement that this double showed EITHER ( a weakish 2nd-chance balancing takeout, or a good hand with strong spade values) and that partner was supposed to look at his own hand and figure it out. Now, is that alertable? is that standard, or normal? I was sorta impressed by their explicit documented agreement on this, but haven't seen very many similarly handle this very common bidding situation.

I thought the facts were found that they both played it the SAME way, as take-out, which is allowed as a treatment of course. If their agreed-by-experience "treatment" is different for 1NT Foricng auctions passed, vs 1NT non-forcing auctions, I can see their point... ...IF they can convince me they had such an agreement, where they play it differently, even inferentially ageed to by style and experience. The good comment about "looking at the Opps cc" also seems to have been avoided by the committee.

I welcome a correction if wrong, but isn't South, told to bid whatever while their partner is forever barred on the auction, allowed to ethically/legally note what their pards attempted bid was? The UI seems mainly to be that it could have been EITHER a 1NT response to 1D, or a 1NT opening, and South must take a best-guess. If (Josh's suggested) poll appears to have any number of players interpret/consider it as other-than-a-strong-1NT (and I suspect few if any would, but that's what polling is for maybe) then I would think it proper to allow a 3NT or similar call. Hearts or slam may be right, so N-S is surely at a disadvantage with such a guess, and if they get lucky (all in 6D down 1) so be it. Now it seems North's totally improper violation is UI of course by a) making it clear that it was to be a 1NT opening and b ) by playing TD and coaching. But if none of the polled players would assume otherwise, certainly imposing 1D wouldn't seem proper. Yes, depending upon the accuracy of North's serioulsy egregious behavior, an appropriate procedural misconduct seems warranted, full board sounds about right.

Re: "There are surely several thousends tables that are broadcasted every year, " I guess this comment suggests there is often some sort of shortage of good commentators. Perhaps. It is however not a question of do we appreciate their time and efforts, or the "free" aspects. It is that some of them are really really REALLY abysmal and knowing that there is no shortage of able volunteers (to commentate for the Spingold), perhaps untested/untried, but whomever is "minding the store" should note some of the foolishness and at least try these others for the next day or session. There is one in particular I am sure all who have watched know, that (he/she/their) lack of proper insight, blatant inaccuracies, and much "nonsense" justified a replacement ASAP. (Even other commentators expressed annoyance in subtle but unmistakable ways.) We want to improve this, not just complain, and only those in the power to make changes can do it of course. Is anyone listening?