Posleda

Yes, I agree. If there is a main reason to stop hosting tourneys, its name is "quitting and subbing". Most of the TD's work is this issue. Applying of bridge rules is a very small part. To find a sub has highest priority - play may continue after bad explanation, but not without a player. Sometimes problems with lower priority (but important for players) can't be solved bec lack of time. Its very frustrating to see a quitter peacefully play another tourney some minutes later. One more point. I heard, that best punishment is IMMEDIATE punishment. Don't allow a registered player to do anything else on BBO than return to tourney to previous place or to sub list. No other tourney, no MBC, no vugraph, no team match, no playing, no kibitzing. Till finish of this tourney. This method is not at variance with actually used one. Certainly must not be used for subs. Will be better for player after real emergency call or disconnection, bec return to regular partner will be easier.

Probably not. AFAIK (I don't check now, but some time ago) final results are computed only from your section, results in movie from the whole tourney. That's the reason, while overall results are unimportant, only deals are common in different sections. In fact each section is a separate tourney.

Lets assume WBF policy. 5♥ was the bid, which waked up S. 2♥ after alpha should mean good fit (♣) and max. TD didn't know the proposal to change opening lead.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skq95haqj954da5c6&w=saj843hk103d4cj932&e=s6h8762d9832caq108&s=s1072hdkqj1076ck754]399|300|Scoring: IMP N S 1♣* 1NT 2♣* 2♥ 4NT 5♣ 5♥ 5NT PASS[/hv] No screens, no convention card, offline match, system Precision Club. Explanations: 1♣ 16+ 1NT 8-10 balanced 2♣ natural 5+, alpha asking 4NT Blackwood 5♣ 03 aces No coincidence when EW asked, but after 5♣ W asked "what is it?". Now or sooner bids were explained as above, nobody asked and explained 2♥. No queries after final pass, no correction of bad explanation before lead. 4♠ lead, faced dummy with ♣ shortness and TD summoned. Before his call NS proposed to change lead. After call S told he thought as explained, but later he found out 2♣ as Stayman. TD didn't instruct NS to correct or add other explanations, and let to continue play. Lead cashed by Q♠, A♥ and Q♥ to king, S discarded ♣ and ♠. ♣ to A, next ♣ to K, just made, hearts behave. TD's decision down 1. After board N told: all my explanations were correct. S: Because of bad light I saw 2 diamonds as hearts and bidded 1NT mistakenly. Before 5♥ bid I found out this mistake. We didn't play with N for several years, so it was my mistake to misunderstand Stayman as alpha. I found out this mistake after 5♥. Repeated question "from what did you find out?" he answered undetermined "so seemed", "so looked". In appeal NS argued, that every lead must set the contract. After cashing K♥ it is clear from Blackwood, that A♣ is by E, so W must play A♠ and ♣. EW's opinion is, there were too many bad explained bids and was hard to believe this one is correct. They played board too confused from opps explanations, because all was very different from explanations. At start ♣ couldn't be led after misexplanations, after this lead contract would be set for sure. How do you rule ? Thanks.

I am not able to write it better.

I am not able to write it better.

Ja mozna generalizuji, ale vy si stale neco domyslite. To, ze nerespektuji nejake pridavne jmeno, vadi mi takovy argument a nechci timto zpusobem diskutovat, neznamena, ze se citim urazen. To se necitim ani v nejmensim. Jenom nechci a neumim rikat, ze misankovy nazory se mi zdaji debilni a coyotovo trvani na "zcela urcite" dementni. :D :D :D A pozor ! Vedlejsi vety v prvnim souveti odstavce jsou prikladem, nikoliv mym tvrzenim. Coz ovsem neznamena, ze si to treba opravdu nemyslim. Jazyk je proste slozita vec.

Naopak, plyne to z kontextu: "skakat na 4T se mi zda uchylny, zaberu 2 drazebni stupne a nic se nedozvim ani ja ani muj partner" Lze vubec vytrhnout z kontextu neco, co nezaznelo ?

Vytratim. Navic se tady zkresluji vyroky. V chapani me generace je "respektuji nazor" neco uplne jineho nez "souhlasim s nazorem". Vzajemne se to nevylucuje ani nepodporuje. Dodam tedy vyslovne: nesouhlasim s tim nazorem. Nazor temer presne rika: "Konvence splinter je uchylna."

Diky za pouceni. Chtel jsem puvodne rici, ze mi podobne hodnoceni meho nazoru vadi. Necitim se v diskusi, vedene temito prostredky, dobre, s cimz rozum nic nenadela. Nemam tuseni, jakymi argumenty se vyvraci/dokazuje uchylnost hlasky. Vy si rozumite, takze kdyz se vytratim, budou spokojeni vsichni. Rict o hlasce, ze je "zcela urcite" nejaka, to bych pouzil jen omylem. V bridzi se malo vyskytuji absolutni jistoty ci pravdy, treba na to taky casem prijdes. Zatim to ber jako moje nevyzadane pouceni.

Respektuji tvuj nazor, ale ne pouzite pridavne jmeno. Na muj vkus presahuje z roviny hodnoceni hlasky do hodnoceni vlastnosti pisatele.

Nothing from 1-3. Respect free market BBO tournaments policy. If you don't like TD's procedures, avoid his/her tournaments. Restriction is often the worst solution. Restrictions make problems. On the contrary, I wonna make changes DURING running tourney, not allowed now. Not often, rarely, but impossibility to do so was several times unpleasant for me and for players too. Avoid restrictions.

Not only logged off, but also playing another tourney. I asked several times the possibility to unregister such pairs, but still impossible ;) . No way to avoid sitout pair at start.

1♥ - 2♦ - 4♣? Ano.

Mam pocit, ze delate veci zbytecne slozite. V partii me na N zajimaji 4 klicove figury, na ktere se lze zeptat blackwoodem. Tim bych ale malinko pominul nebezpeci chybejici kontroly druheho kola kar a nemuselo by byt jasne, ze jsou dohodnuta srdce. Splinter 4♣ resi oboje. Partner muze cuebidovat 4♦, cimz i zhodnoti, jak mu moje kratkost vyhovuje. Taky potvrzuje ♥ a nasledny BW je jiste na 5.