Most ridiculous ruling of the year.

[cicus]

This is one where I am going to side with the Director:

 

You have every right to play a strong pass or a Wilkosz 2♦ or whatever you please. However, if you're going to do so, you damn better go out of your way to practice proper disclosure of your methods. In this example, you clearly failed to do so.

 

You announced a 2♦ opening that shows at least 5-5 shape and five to eight HCP. You chose to open this hand with a 3 count. In your defense, you claim this three count is equivalent to five HCP because you "I do have 3HCP plus a singleton which is around 5 points in my book". Unfortunately, when you open a 5-5 hand, you're pretty much assured of having a singleton or a void. I don't think that you can double count this way.

 

I think that you systemically practicing misleading disclosure in a situation where you should be bending over backwards to make sure that your opponents understand your agreements. You doing so your making life a lot more difficult for anyone else who plays anything out of the mainstream.

 

Lets more on to the Director's ruling. In a perfect world, the Director would be able to nail you with a proceedural penalty for your offense. However, you know as well as I do that the BBO software doesn't allow for this. You claim "You join their tournament with the valid expectation that they will follow the rules of bridge". You also join the tournament with the understanding that the Director needs to avail themselves of the tools that they have available.

 

In this case, the Director (essentially) cancelled the board by assigning averages to both sides. I'd prefer to be able fine tune the results a bit more (I'd let the opponents keep their score, while giving you and Average minus and a proceedural penalty). Sadly, I can't.

My view, exactly. If I find anything ridiculous with the whole thing it is the explanation that the hand is worth 8 HCP because it contains a singleton (not to mention that 5 points for a singleton is an evaluation which has been overlooked by all leading theorists so far).

[Codo]

Fot the ruling, everything has been said. I am with the guy, who will give you a penalty and the opps their score.

 

For the problem of using wilkosz and varieties of this convention: I guess 95 % of all players have no defence against this opening. Just because it is banned in some (?) or many countries for normal tourneys.

 

Now, you play a tourney with 3/4 boards against a pair, which plays this method. Wonderful. So, to prepair a defence, you better discuss this. What time do you need? 2 Minutes? 5 Min? Of course, experts have their methods, advancing players may have meta- agreements. But this is not enough. To find a good defence against Wilkosz is quite hard work. So, when I would play this or similar conventions, I would at least give a full and working defence to the opps. I won´t want to win a hand, because they had no chance to find the right defence against a highly unusual bidding.

And I would surely never upgrade my hand from 3 HCPs to 5 "points". I would tell the opps, that I have 3-8 HCP and stay fixed.

 

Even if you had the right to do all this and even if it is normal to evaluate hands, it "smells", if you do this in a highly unusual situation. I absolutely understand, that the opps. were upset about your bidding and that the TD ruled against you.

[helene_t]

Not only have we violated no law but the opps have "failed to play bridge" by 1) not discussing a defense when this came up even though we told them they could do so,

Apart from the time constraints already mentioned are your opps expected to discuss their defense strategies openly at the table? Once a round has started it is not possible to talk privately with your partner.

 

jb

Full disclosure applies to defense against Wilkosz as well. Besides, if they could discuss this in private when it came up, the defense could be "my double shows A-Kxxx-Ax-Kxxxxx". OK, I'm being paranoid. But I think Todd was allready quite generous in offering the opps that they could discuss a defense when it came up.

[hotShot]

Any licenced TD will have to enforce the WBF Bridge Laws and the WBF sytem policy Wilkosz and your modified Wilkosz is a Brown Sticker convention and banned for most of the WBF events.

CATEGORY 3

 

All other WBF Tournaments & Championships and stages of such events not covered by Categories 1 & 2 above

 

The use of both HUM systems and Brown Sticker conventions is prohibited.

So i don't share your view that, if the tournament rules do not say anything, Brown Sticker conventions are permitted.

This means your use of an illegal convention made the board unplayable and an artifical score has to be assiged. (Ave- for you and Ave + for your opps).

In the few cases where Brown Sticker conventions may be used, you have to supply a defence.

Brown sticker conventions will be permitted, subject to adequate disclosure, but players using them must submit their Convention Cards & Brown Sticker Announcement Forms (appendix 1) in advance in accordance with the Conditions of Contest. At the same time a viable suggested defence to any Brown Sticker convention must be filed. This will be deemed to be a part of the Convention Card and may be referred to by the opponents at the table.

When opps did not discuss a defence, they did well. After seeing the cards it is impossible to ignore shape and strength of your own hand while discussing a defence. The amount of UI that will be exchanged would make is almost impossible to play the board.

Assume for a second west would have suggested to bid all 19+hcp hands with dbl ......

As others pointed out after the round clock has started, it is impossible to invent and agree a defence against HUM methods and finish the board on time.

 

If you play HUM and provide information about it, you should make sure that your hand fits the description. I don't know what you said at the table but in your post you said:

I open 2♦ and alert as 5-8, two-suiter with at least one 5 card major.

You did not specify the minimum legth of the second suit, so we assume 4.

You did not specify what kind of points you use, so (4321) HCP is assumed.

Now if you have a 5-4 distribution you will always have at least 2 distributinal points. So you should say 3-8 or "points including distribution".

[Free]

Hi all,

 

I suggested he call the 5-4+ 2-suiters Mucas Twos or Lucasz Twos (sz is pronounced like 'sh' in English).  He didn't like the former.

 

Thanks,

Dan

It looks exactly like 'Rainbow', without the strong meanings. Perhaps 'mini-Rainbow' is the most accurate. ;) Rainbow however doesn't contain both Majors...

[Gerben42]

Agree with many posters.

 

First: You cannot call it Wilkosz if it does not promise 5 - 5.

 

Second: If this is allowed, please state that 2♦ shows 3 - 8 HCP, not 5 - 8 or whatever.

 

On the other hand:

 

First: I know for a fact that you ALWAYS state that opps can discuss defence at the table.

 

Second: This is a typical case of whining. They would not have bid differently if ♣Q was in South instead of North. The relevant information on the AUCTION is that 2♦ is a weak bid, how weak is not relevant at this point, it might be important during the PLAY.

 

Third: You can't win anything in these tournaments, nor can you lose anything. Play to improve your skills and do not be annoyed when a director makes clueless decisions. It happens. Now if the tourney had a $100 first prize, things change.

 

SUGGESTED COURSE OF ACTION:

 

1. Put your system into Full Disclosure - at least the first round of bidding. In FD then not only enter the meaning of the bid but also a suggested defence for anything that might need one (in your case most opening bids :))

 

2. Relax and have fun ;)

[Gerben42]

BTW suggested auction:

 

2♦* Dbl 2♠* Pass

3♣ 3♦ Pass 3♠

Pass 4♠ Pass 4NT*

Pass 5♦* Pass 5♥*

Pass 6♥* Pass 7♠

All Pass

 

Dbl: Take out of ♠ or 18+

Pass of 2♠: Waiting to see what happens next

3♦: 18 - 21 with ♦

3♠: Forcing with ♠

4♠: Fit

4NT: RKC

etc.

[Fluffy]

This post title reminded me of the most ridicoulous ruling ever.

 

The bidding was:

 

N - E - S - W

1NT-... -ps-ps

 

 

South bid pass before East could bid.

 

The director was then summoned, and asked if west ahd accepted south's pass, he did. So it was north's turn now. He passed also, so the bidding was 1NT -no bid-pass-pass-pass and the bidding seemed to be over afte 3 passes.

 

But then East claimed that it was unfair that the bidding would be over before she could make a single bid!. Director agreed with her, and after thinking a while took back North's last pass and FORCED her to bid somethign else. So the bidding would not be over.

 

After some shock North bid 2♣, wich was alerted as stayman (I guess its the first time ever when a 1NT opener bids stayman himself ;)). And they ended in a correct 4-3 fit in 2♥.

[Gerben42]

That's funny ;)

 

Perhaps the director would do well to look in the Law book.

[hotShot]

That's funny ;)

 

Perhaps the director would do well to look in the Law book.

A clear case of LAW 34.

[Echognome]

Unlike others that have a problem with using the methods themselves in a short match like a tournament, I do not agree with them at all. Yes, it is probably the case that you have an unfair advantage against unsuspecting opponents. But, this is online bridge and the great testing ground for many conventions. It is ONLY online where many people get to try out their more unusual methods. It is the only place where I have played a forcing pass system and played against one. It is online where I learned the different ways you might want to psyche and how to counter other's psyches. So I feel quite strongly that if the tourney did not state any convention restrictions, then Todd was quite right in playing whatever methods he preferred. It is probably a good way for them to learn meta agreements for conventions they are unfamiliar with.

[Sigi_BC84]

Any licenced TD will have to enforce the WBF Bridge Laws and the WBF sytem policy Wilkosz and your modified Wilkosz is a Brown Sticker convention and banned for most of the WBF events.

[...]

This means your use of an illegal convention made the board unplayable and an artifical score has to be assiged.

What the WBF regulations say does not matter on BBO, because most BBO tournaments are not WBF endorsed events.

 

When I'm a BBO TD and chose to open a tourney where "anything goes", I'd certainly not accept if anybody pointed to any WBF regulation and told me I couldn't hold the event as I liked.

 

All the system regulations around, be it WBF, ACBL or national specialties only matter if the event is hosted under the auspices of the respective body. This is not the case for a typical BBO tournament.

 

--Sigi

[hotShot]

What the WBF regulations say does not matter on BBO, because most BBO tournaments are not WBF endorsed events.

 

When I'm a BBO TD and chose to open a tourney where "anything goes", I'd certainly not accept if anybody pointed to any WBF regulation and told me I couldn't hold the event as I liked.

 

All the system regulations around, be it WBF, ACBL or national specialties only matter if the event is hosted under the auspices of the respective body.  This is not the case for a typical BBO tournament.

 

--Sigi

As far as i know, BBO has no book of laws of their own. So the only set of bridge laws arround are those of the WBL. Any other organisazion adapts them for their use.

 

The only organisations that certifies TD's, are doing this using the laws of the WBL. So this is the set of laws they are certified to enforce.

 

So if you decide only to use a subset of those laws, you should state that in your condition of contest.

 

The right to host tourneys on BBO, has nothing to do with beeing a certified TD.

[Free]

Not all TD's allow psychs, so they're also not following the WBF rules...

[hotShot]

Not all TD's allow psychs, so they're also not following the WBF rules...

Your are right, and they should state that "loud and clear".

[Codo]

I agree, that BBO is a perfect place to try out any tool and any system you want to try. But is there any reaosn, why you must use it in a tourney? I would like to plaay opps with forcing pass and any conventional bid they like at any given table. F.E. Claus quite often arrange tables, where he announces just lambda any other "weird stuff" :P is allowed.

But I don´t think, that this is a good idea to use in the tourneys.

 

I don`t care about the score and anything else in a tourney, so for me personel, it is no problem to cope with any system. But I doubt, that this is the view of the majority.

 

And if I want to practice for the next real life team match, I would strongly prefer opps, who play systems, which I may face IRL. Wilkosz or strong pass is not allowed there, so there is not much use in playing online against this tool.

[Sigi_BC84]

What the WBF regulations say does not matter on BBO, because most BBO tournaments are not WBF endorsed events.

 

When I'm a BBO TD and chose to open a tourney where "anything goes", I'd certainly not accept if anybody pointed to any WBF regulation and told me I couldn't hold the event as I liked.

 

All the system regulations around, be it WBF, ACBL or national specialties only matter if the event is hosted under the auspices of the respective body.  This is not the case for a typical BBO tournament.

 

--Sigi

As far as i know, BBO has no book of laws of their own. So the only set of bridge laws arround are those of the WBL. Any other organisazion adapts them for their use.

 

The only organisations that certifies TD's, are doing this using the laws of the WBL. So this is the set of laws they are certified to enforce.

 

So if you decide only to use a subset of those laws, you should state that in your condition of contest.

 

The right to host tourneys on BBO, has nothing to do with beeing a certified TD.

1. There is no "certified BBO TD". You are a TD if uday makes you one. From what I've heard, in certain countries the situation is quite the same in f2f bridge even.

 

2. National bridge organizations are encouraged (but not enforced!) to follow the WBF guidelines, but many fail to do so (including Germany's organization and, most notably, the ACBL).

 

3. The fact that BBO has no governing body (and, hence, no formal regulations) does not mean that automatically the WBF regulations are adapted. Basically, BBO is a Bridge anarchy and table/tourney hosts decide if they want to play pure Bridge (which means, full disclosure but no restrictions) or want to somehow cripple the game by introducing system regulations. In the latter case, I still see no reason why the WBF regulations should be the model. A purely Polish tournament for sure will accept Wilkosz, which would be clearly against WBF guidelines for low-level tournaments.

 

BTW Todd has already mentioned in his original post that no restrictions had been advertised for the tournament he was playing in. Therefore, anything goes (I don't see a reason to assume any WBF category).

 

--Sigi

[david_c]

As far as i know,  BBO has no book of laws of their own. So the only set of bridge laws arround are those of the WBL. Any other organisazion adapts them for their use.

Yes, but there's a difference between Laws and system regulations. The WBF Laws are used by everyone. But Law 40D says

 

The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions.

 

So then the WBF defines some system regulations which get used when the WBF itself is the sponsoring organision. Other sponsoring organisations (such as BBO TDs) can choose to use those if they like, but they usually make up their own instead. Default is for there to be no restrictions - if a TD wants to run a tournament with system regulations then these should be stated in the tournament description.

[hrothgar]

A number of posters on this thread are confusing two very different sets of regulations:

 

There are any number of bridge regulations that deal with sanctioning individual conventions. You may not like the fact that that the 2♦ opening that DrTodd was playing was legal in this event. However, the conditions of contest clearly permitted these methods to be played. The words "HUM" and "Brown Sticker Conventions" should never show up in this ruling. They are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. The fact that a number of individuals are continually raising these topics suggests a strong bias that should preclude them from participating in these sorts of decisions.

 

There is a second set of regulations that focus on whether or not a pair provides appropriate disclosure of (whatever) methods they are playing. Personally, I think that DrTodd's partnership has fallen short of providing adequat disclosure and that a proceedural peanlty is warranted.

[Walddk]

A number of posters on this thread are confusing two very different sets of regulations:

 

There are any number of bridge regulations that deal with sanctioning individual conventions. You may not like the fact that that the 2♦ opening that DrTodd was playing was legal in this event. However, the conditions of contest clearly permitted these methods to be played. The words "HUM" and "Brown Sticker Conventions" should never show up in this ruling. They are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed. The fact that a number of individuals are contiually raising these topics suggests a strong bias that should preclude them from participating in these sorts of decisions.

 

There is a second set of regulations that focus on whether or not a pair provides appropriate disclosure of (whatever) methods they are playing. Personally, I think that DrTodd's partnership has fallen short of providing adequat disclosure and that a proceedural peanlty is warranted.

Not often that I agree with Richard's posts, so this must be the exception to the rule. He is spot on!

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

It's not really reasonable to expect online players to discuss a defense to an unfamiliar system within the time confines of a tournament. If it happens in an event I care about, I insist on a complete disclosure of system togehter with follow up bids they use, and take my time discussinig how we will handle each and every possibility. If there is no longer time to play the hands, tough.

This is all fine and dandy, so long as you understand that the definition of "tough" boils down to an Avg+ / Avg - for any unplayable boards with your partnership taking the blame.

 

I'm perfectly happy with system regulations that are based on the length of the round being played. It seems reasonable for a two round pairs tournament to have a more restrictive set of conventions than a 28 board KO. However, once the sponsoring organization has made a decision regarding which set of conventions are allowed you have an obligation to play bridge. Spending 15 minutes documenting your methods over "each and every" call that the opponents could conceivably make seems a lot closer to masturbation than card play.

 

For better or worse, coping with the unexpected / unusual is part of bridge. You don't have the option of rendering boards unplayable because your not comfortable with this part of the game.

[zasanya]

45 replies in 2 days over the most ridiculous etc etc .I think this thread is degenerating into the most.......Where is the Editor?

[inquiry]

45 replies in 2 days over the most ridiculous etc etc .I think this thread is degenerating into the most.......Where is the Editor?

I assume you mean moderator. The only person "identified" in this thread is DrTodd. He didn't identify the director who made this ruling (I have no idea what law was used to assign averages to both sides here, that doesn't seem possible to me), nor who his opponents were.

 

The discussion is centering on whether

• the ruling was correct (clearly it can;t be)
  
• The alert was sufficient and adequate
  
• Rather the convention (brown sticker as played) should be legal
  
• And a few other issue of general interest
  

IF you promise 55 in a suit, you will always have a singleton. so is announcing 5-8 acceptible if you are counting points for your singleton and doubleton? Can this posssibly be A== and if not, and if the director wants to make a ruling against the non-offending side (that is, that there was an offense), what should the ruling be? IF there was a offense, specifically what was it? Was alerting 5-8 (their agreement) holding 3 an offense (answer no, as you alert agreement, not what actually is held). Is even 5-8 their agreement (statement that 3 with a singleton is worth 5 suggest their agreement is probably 2 to 6 or something).

 

There are a number of issues here worth hammering out (no doubt little consesus will be forthcoming). If the director assumes the alert was both insufficient and that the agreement was not explained (lighter than announced), then Ave+/- seems in order. The call for procedural penalty has to go unanswered, however, as taht is not possible on the BBO (as of yet).

 

Let the disucssion continue.

[jillybean]

Not only have we violated no law but the opps have "failed to play bridge" by 1) not discussing a defense when this came up even though we told them they could do so,

Apart from the time constraints already mentioned are your opps expected to discuss their defense strategies openly at the table? Once a round has started it is not possible to talk privately with your partner.

 

jb

Full disclosure applies to defense against Wilkosz as well. Besides, if they could discuss this in private when it came up, the defense could be "my double shows A-Kxxx-Ax-Kxxxxx". OK, I'm being paranoid. But I think Todd was allready quite generous in offering the opps that they could discuss a defense when it came up.

This is somewhat irrelevant here perhaps but I was interested to know if players are expected or indeed are permitted to discuss defense after an unusual method is announced at the table?

[hrothgar]

Was alerting 5-8 (their agreement) holding 3 an offense (answer no, as you alert agreement, not what actually is held).

I repeat once again:

 

When DrTodd made his original post he did not defend his actions based either a deviation or a psyche. Rather, he makes the claim that stating that a 2♦ opening shows "5-8" represents appropriate disclosure because he gets to count points for distribution. I don't know what their agreement is, but its clearly not "5-8". I will note in passing that several people in this thread have mentioned that DrTodd always pre-alerts that their point count is based off a 4.5 / 3 / 1.5 / .75 point count structure. Using this metric, the hand in question isn't even a 3 count. its only worth 2.25. Even if you give yourself 2 points for a stiff you still don't have a 5 count.

 

If you had originally claimed that opening 2♦ on this particular hand represented a deviation or even a psyche I might rule very differently. But you didn't. You claimed that this hand is systemic and that "5-8" represents adequate disclosure. Trying to back into a different defense later on really doesn't reflect well on you...

 

Furthermore, DrTodd makes the claim that lots of people upgrade or downgrade hands and exercise judgement whether to upgrade or downgrade hands and suggests that the opponent's need to expect this... Unfortunately, this is where playing a "weird" system in a tournament is going to start causing you problems. I readily agree that experts regulary exercise judgement regarding what hands they open. Furthermore, if I run into an expert pair that opens on 15-17 HCP 1NT I'm not going to be shocked if they table a nice juicy 3=3=5=2 14 count. I run into lots of experts who exercise judgement regarding 1NT openings. However, its not reasonable to expect me to have the same degree of experience with whatever random crap you happen to be playing this week.

 

The only thing that I have available to protect myself is the accuracy of your alerts. I think that I have the right to expect that you actually describe the methods that you employ.