adjustment dilemma

[Mr. Dodgy]

[hv=d=e&v=a&n=sa93hakt4dakj52c7&w=sj84hj63d8cakt832&e=sk75h7dqt963c9654&s=sqt62hq9852d74cqj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  Pass

 Pass  1♦    2♦    Pass

 2♥    Dbl   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

 

I got some flack for making an adjustment on this board recently, so I'd like to see what others think of my decision (also curious to see how to put hand diagrams into the forums...hope it works out OK).

 

I hasten to note that the East player is known to me for bad behaviour previously, and is consequently prohibited from playing in tournaments that I host. In this case, however, I was directing for another host. Further, East had just substituted into the tournament and this was the first (and only) board he/she participated in. East's profile says only 'WJ2000' (may not be exact).

 

East's 2♦ overcall is at the very least curious. I'm sure this bid is not standard in any mainstream system, and probably not reasonable in any. If it were 3♦ I'd ALMOST understand it (although I'm quite fond of leaping/super michaels, and sometimes play some rather strange defenses to 1m openers).

 

2♥X went down 5 at the table, and I re-substituted East. After some deliberation I adjusted the board to 4♥S+2 - a result I felt was likely to give N-S a top without too adversely affecting the scores at the other tables. Indeed it did turn out to be a narrow top.

 

If this were a partnership who had any decent opportunity at all to have an agreement about their bidding methods I would have let the result stand. Did I do wrong?

[hotShot]

To justify an adjustment we need a violation of bridge laws and i don't see any. If 2♦ was not alerted NS should assume it is natural, which is in fact right.

After E initial pass, his bid is oviously weaker than an opening.

W did not open, so to E it is clear that N is strong. E plan seems to be to take NS some bidding space and hope that S will not have a bid over 2♦.

The bidding shows that indeed S passed.

 

For some reason W thought that 2♦ was some sort of michaels, just an expensive missunderstanding.

With NS able to make 6, a move was justified, but did not work in this new partnership.

 

Misunderstanding -> bad score -> no need to act for the TD.

[hrothgar]

Couple comments here:

 

1. In my experience, players who are randomly subbed into a tournament rarely have the opportunity for any kind of detailed system discussion with their partners. Hell. Most of em don't discuss system at all. Its entirely possible that East assumed that auctions like (1m) - 2m should be assumed to be natural without any discussion.

 

2. The ruling doesn't make any sense to me. If you are going to adjust the score, than you should be adjusting based on the presumption of restoring equity. I don't see many lines where 6♥ makes. Accordingly, its hard to argue how awarding this score is compatible with your overall goal. I understand you motivation - you want to eliminate an outlier. However, I am of the opinion that the "correct" way to do this would be to switch different scoring system: If there is a problem, address it "systemically" rather than forcing directors to adjust on a case by case basis... The following web site has a useful introduction. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/butler.htm

 

3. Its unclear why you subbed out the East player. I don't know (and don't really care) about the issues that you and East have had in the past. I will merely note that its important for Directors to avoid the appearance of bias. Subbing out a player because you disagree with his bidding seems questionable.

[david_c]

There is a reason to adjust if you think that East bid deliberately badly. Then the situation is the same as if they had bid 7NT and redoubled - in which case I would agree with adjusting the score and removing the player. I would prefer to adjust to A++ in cases like this, on the grounds that East's actions prevented the hand from being played in any meaningful sense, and neither side is at fault (once East has been removed).

 

But I'm not totally convinced that East's 2♦ was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the game. For example, maybe they misread the auction and thought that their partner had opened 1♦. I'd probably not take any action just on the evidence of this one hand. But if you have previous experience of this player, then maybe you might have a better idea of what was going on.

[Walddk]

No need to adjust anything. No one violated any bridge law.

 

Roland

[Mr. Dodgy]

OK, so far popular opinion has it that I DID do wrong - perhaps I should add a poll, haven't done that before either.

 

I have to think that the bidding may well have been deliberately bad by East in light of the notes I have on them from previous occasions, though I admit that those notes are not terribly concise. I am reasonably tolerant (I think) about blacklisting players, so this individual must have been a problem more than once before.

 

I find David's example of mistakenly thinking that west had opened 1♦ perplexing - surely you would rescue to 3♦ in that case holding a singleton ♥, though I suppose it does beggar the question as to why east did not see fit to protect with 3♣.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[shoeless]

I agree there was no foul here - however I also want to say you have my respect for posting this and asking - you obviously care alot about doing a good job.

[pigpenz]

yes let results stand, and warn east that he can be banned for capricious bidding :rolleyes:

[Guest Jlall]

If it were a crime to bid badly then every player in the world would be banned.

[luis]

I think I agree with the TD.

I think there's enough to assume East was bidding badly on purpose, he might have even enrolled as a sub to disturb the tournament results.

Playing Face 2 face bridge there's no infraction but in F2F bridge there're no subs and if a player intentionally distorts the results he is subject to a disciplinary measure by the ethics comitee. In this case the TD acted as the ethics comitee and removed the sub. Adjusting the board seems to be a sensible decision and I think I agree in all you did.

 

Luis

[han]

I agree with Luis. Although there is no clear violation of the laws, it seems like this player was out to upset the tournament and succeeded. I would give NS an average plus and west an average score.

[hrothgar]

I agree with Luis. Although there is no clear violation of the laws, it seems like this player was out to upset the tournament and succeeded.

This all MIGHT be true... It might not...

 

If the TD believes this to be true, he has an obligation to discuss the board with the participants and try to sort out what happened before resorting to executive fiat.

[pigpenz]

I agree with Luis. Although there is no clear violation of the laws, it seems like this player was out to upset the tournament and succeeded.

This all MIGHT be true... It might not...

 

If the TD believes this to be true, he has an obligation to discuss the board with the participants and try to sort out what happened before resorting to executive fiat.

if it came out in discussion tht east bid that way on purpose to distort results he should be banned and equity established, but if it cant be proved that he did that then the result would have to stay.

[Rain]

I agree with the TD's decision here, because I saw it as East deliberately attempting to sabotage the board with a psyche and refusal to continue bidding.

Not adjusting score would affect the rest of the field then.

 

The adjustment gave NS a top board still, but not a head and shoulders top, when that result was not really possible normally.

 

Another thing to consider is, there may be no WBF or ACBL bridge law supporting this, but TDs are generally given some flexibility in what they do here. No adjustment tourneys, no psyche tourneys, undos always allowed tourneys, no crazy score tourneys. May not be to everyone's preference, but as long as the action was reasonable it can stay.

[candybar]

You never stated on what basis you adjusted the score.

 

In order to adjust a score for failing to alert the 2D bid, two things are required:

 

1. There must be misinformation.

2. There must be damage.

 

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural. So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

 

However, in this case, it seems obvious that there was no such agreement. Therefore, there was no misinformation. Period. Partner should certainly expect the 2D bid to be standard meaning of Michaels, and West's bidding suggest that's exactly what he thought.

 

There is no evidence of damage, because the opposing side clearly got a top anyway. So there is no misinformation and no damage.

 

In order to adjust the score for procedural reasons, you would have to show that some Law was violated.

 

You have no evidence or proof that East intended anything other than a bid to play 2D. This is clearly nothing like opening 7N and then redoubling. It was a simple bid -- maybe not one that you would have made, but that's not against the rules.

 

Whatever you may think of East, once he was allowed into the tournament, you must treat him with the same respect and accord him the same benefit of the laws as everyone else.

 

I cannot see any basis for any adjustment.

[Walddk]

You never stated on what basis you adjusted the score.

 

In order to adjust a score for failing to alert the 2D bid, two things are required:

 

1. There must be misinformation.

2. There must be damage.

 

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural. So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

 

However, in this case, it seems obvious that there was no such agreement. Therefore, there was no misinformation. Period. Partner should certainly expect the 2D bid to be standard meaning of Michaels, and West's bidding suggest that's exactly what he thought.

 

There is no evidence of damage, because the opposing side clearly got a top anyway. So there is no misinformation and no damage.

 

In order to adjust the score for procedural reasons, you would have to show that some Law was violated.

 

You have no evidence or proof that East intended anything other than a bid to play 2D. This is clearly nothing like opening 7N and then redoubling. It was a simple bid -- maybe not one that you would have made, but that's not against the rules.

 

Whatever you may think of East, once he was allowed into the tournament, you must treat him with the same respect and accord him the same benefit of the laws as everyone else.

 

I cannot see any basis for any adjustment.

It can't be put any clearer than that. Rain's statement "I saw it as East deliberately attempting to sabotage the board with a psyche" is not valid in the context of the laws of bridge. She needs to prove that East violated a law. There is no such evidence and therefore no cause for adjustment.

 

I wish that people who are to make decisions like this one were certified directors, because if they were there would not have been such a ruling. It is nowhere to be found that East had been abusive and therefore subject to a procedural penalty.

 

He may have bid badly, but there is no law against bidding badly, and there is certainly no evidence of intent.

 

Roland

[McBruce]

I have seen a rise in sabotage recently in my tournaments, but I don't think this comes up to the standard:

 

1. East stayed at the table. Most saboteurs leave once they have ensured a bad result.

 

2. East might have redoubled, but did not.

 

Now, that said, I would watch East for other examples of spectacularly bad play attributable to him. It may be that the goons who play tournaments to skew the results are learning that 7NTxx is too obvious.

 

I think the best course of action is to confront the player after a result like this. "What was the 2♦ bid all about?" in private chat, might get you "I misclicked, didn't know what to do," or "misread the auction" or whatever. Silence, although it may be a language issue, is grounds for further observation.

 

If you feel that sabotage is involved, the thing to do is to adjust to A++ for all, and remember to contact abuse afterwards. Giving the non-offending side a top is wrong unless they were on the way to a top when the sabotage took place.

 

Here is a concern: the TD here was never called to the table, but watched the East player once subbed, because of a prior reputation in a different series of tournaments. He admits that East was not barred from the tourney he was directing, yet he certainly gave East a higher standard of observation -- and ejected him on the first suspicious result without checking for a reason for his bidding. I think if you are subbing for another TD, you follow that TDs rules. You don't substitute your own. The East player was a legal replacement in this tournament and didn't deserve the special treatment he got, whatever he did in the other tourney.

 

That criticism made, and perhaps made a little more harshly than I should, I must commend the original poster for starting the discussion here. I'm sure he did a good job otherwise and will continue to do so.

[pigpenz]

So we do people do this in the first place, i could think off alot of better thinks in life to do than show up at a bridge game online make a stupid bid or too, whoops i do that all the time ;) you know what i mean....these folks need to get a life!

 

Reminds of Mirc wars!!!

[barmar]

You never stated on what basis you adjusted the score.

 

In order to adjust a score for failing to alert the 2D bid, two things are required:

 

1. There must be misinformation.

2. There must be damage.

You're talking about damage to NS, but what about West? Under normal circumstances you don't get protection from your partner's misbids or misbehavior, because you select your own partner and should discuss your system, or you choose to enter an individual and take your chances. But in this case a sub was forced on him. Even if he knew they were not compatible, did he have an opportunity to refuse the sub?

 

I got the impression that the adjustment was made to make up for giving him a bad sub in the first place, not because the other side was damaged.

[david_c]

Rain's statement "I saw it as East deliberately attempting to sabotage the board with a psyche" is not valid in the context of the laws of bridge. She needs to prove that East violated a law. There is no such evidence and therefore no cause for adjustment.

This seems very wrong to me. Why are we talking about "proof"? It is the TD's job to decide what happened, and then make a ruling based on that decision. He doesn't have to prove what was going on.

 

Here the TD decided that East was deliberately trying to sabotage the game. Well, that's his decision to make, and he was in a better position to make that decision than any of us. So, though the evidence of the original post doesn't seem sufficient to me, I'm happy to go with the TD's judgement of what happened.

[Finch]

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural. So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.

Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

 

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

[pigpenz]

This seems very wrong to me. Why are we talking about "proof"? It is the TD's job to decide what happened, and then make a ruling based on that decision. He doesn't have to prove what was going on.

 

Here the TD decided that East was deliberately trying to sabotage the game. Well, that's his decision to make, and he was in a better position to make that decision than any of us. So, though the evidence of the original post doesn't seem sufficient to me, I'm happy to go with the TD's judgement of what happened.

But Roland is correct, East can bid anything he wants its within the rules of bridge call it a psyche or what.

 

There is no reason to adjust the board.

Now if the player still continues doing that than there is a problem.

[candybar]

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural.  So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.

Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

 

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

So then in the EBU, you must alert Michaels? Because you obviously cannot have two vastly different meanings for the same bid and not alert at least one of them.

[jillybean]

Contrary to what some people seem to think, a direct cuebid of a natural bid is alertable if it is meant as natural.  So if these people had an agreement that 1D 2D was natural, then it would have to be alerted.

Depends where in the world you are.

Or, in BBO, it depends on the alerting regulations of the tournament.

 

It's not alertable if natural in the EBU, for example.

So then in the EBU, you must alert Michaels? Because you obviously cannot have two vastly different meanings for the same bid and not alert at least one of them.

This is where I get very confused - you are saying a natural bid must be alerted and an artificial bid (in this case Michaels) does NOT need to be alerted?

 

I assumed Michaels was not alerted because SAYC players have gotten lazy, much like the polish♣ players they cry foul about. The lack of alert usually does not matter, both parties assuming 'michaels' but if the opps make td call after such a bid surely you need to treat it as a failure to alert a conventional bid ?

 

Perhaps this method works when only one clearly defined system is allowed but I fail to see how it could apply to an open tournament.

 

jb

[Mr. Dodgy]

The more I consider my last post in this thread, the more I am inclined to concur that those who have responded with the 'legal' opinion that no adjustment should have been made are correct.

 

West did have the opportunity to save in ♣s, and given that she has now been passed for penalty, considered the possibility that East's original overcall may have been natural (and, as noted by previous posters, given the initial pass, possibly somewhat light) - especially considering her own ♦ holding, but chose not to.

 

Indeed, if this WAS sabotage, it is a frighteningly subtle example. My apologies to those concerned.

 

I would like to make one other note: It has been suggested that I lingered at the table because of the 'bad' substitute and reacted with bias. This is not the case - I left the table to attend other matters and was recalled by West saying 'help, partner does not know SAYC', and thought that given the cicumstances re-substituting was fair enough.

 

Thanks once again, this has been very instructive and I hope I will do better in the future as a result.