FD disallowed in tourney - unposted rule

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

Last night in the Rock Around the Clock, our FD card for TOSR explained a 1H opening as showing spades, and I alerted as well. The opponents called general foul when they bid my suit naturally and got punished for a zero, and the tourney director was called. Ruling? We must type our bids, not only use FD, because the TD cannot see the FD explanations or alerts in the board history. In other words, we may as well not use FD. This was not a posted rule, nor will it likely be since I've never seen it posted in the rules before on those tournies.

 

Just a warning for the Rock Around the Clockers who might use this feature of the software.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[csdenmark]

Hi all,

Last night in the Rock Around the Clock, our FD card for TOSR explained a 1H opening as showing spades, and I alerted as well.  The opponents called general foul when they bid my suit naturally and got punished for a zero, and the tourney director was called.  Ruling?  We must type our bids, not only use FD, because the TD cannot see the FD explanations or alerts in the board history.  In other words, we may as well not use FD.  This was not a posted rule, nor will it likely be since I've never seen it posted in the rules before on those tournies.

 

Just a warning for the Rock Around the Clockers who might use this feature of the software.

 

Thanks,

Dan

Dan I think I see your point but I doubt you are justified in your complaint. I used this opportunity to take a look of their rules. To me it looks they really intend to be serious and to inform best possible.

 

I think you have noticed their general disclaimer that no appeals accepted unless forwared to their head-director. They also ask for suggestions to improve their information/rules by contacting them either via BBO or a mail address.

 

I am pretty sure they will love to receive a message from you.

[inquiry]

A couple of issues here.

 

1) All the director had to do was to point to the bid with his mouse (yes even ones not highlighted as alerts) and he would see the FD description. This ruling is completely bogus and the reason stated seems unsupportable,

 

2) I assume your bid was very artificial you should ALERT it by pushing the alert button. It is true that FD will say "artificial" on the top line, but that is easily overlooked. If you press the alert button. the bid is greyed and if they point at it the FD description box will open up. I am not saying you need to retype all the text in the FD explanation, but you SHOULD PRESS alert.

 

3) I wish (hope) that some day FD will add the text of at least the ALERTS to the actual bids. This way, the alerts will end up in the stored lin files. The director will only be able to see the FD desciptions now if he comes to the table while the hand is still active. And anyone reviewsing the files afterwards (say from myhands) will not see the alerts nor the explainations.

 

4) FD convention cards are an accepted way to share information with your opponents (and if fact, if filled out, a superior way). I CAN NOT imagine any sanctioned tournaments on the BBO banning their use. I am sure this will be a great disappoint to Fred who is working hard on these to improve the gaming experience for all BBO players. And even it it is not, it is a great disappointment to me see such a ruling. The only legitimate complaint I could consider about these FD cards is if your SIDE can see the explainations. TD's should have the right to turn off that abiliity (your opponents can see, but you can not).

[DJNeill]

Hi inquiry,

 

I definitely hit Alert with all my alertable bids using FD, and rely on the astute opponent to roll over the greyed bid in the auction box. The director didn't even know to look for FD. The director said "that doesn't look like 2/1", when (s)he was looking in fact at the opponent's card. It does sound like the opponent didn't notice that it was alerted. You can look up the board now in the myhands and it is greyed.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[pigpenz]

yes i thought the idea was the make FD the standard eventually replacing the old styel convention cards. :ph34r:

[hrothgar]

McDonalds does make particularly good hamburgers. Lord knows, Taco Bell doesn't serve good Mexican foods. What these chains do offer is consistency. If you go into a McDonalds in Seattle the hamburger that you buy is going to be pretty much identical to the one that you purchase in Atlanta.

 

Ultimately, I suspect that these same types of “chains” are going to emerge Online bridge. I'm not sure when we're going to see the first large private sponsoring organizations start to emerge. To some extent this will depend on whether established brands like the ACBL or the EBL are able to transition successfully to the electronic arena.

 

In the mean time, the best that we can do is track those tournament directors and clubs that make some questionable decisions.

[luke warm]

i think any tourney on bbo should be sanctioned for disallowing FD... allow it or don't have a tourney, period

[Gerben42]

I can see the problem with FD. This way you can see the meaning of PARTNER'S bid as well as that of everyone else. This should be blocked.

[hrothgar]

i think any tourney on bbo should be sanctioned for disallowing FD... allow it or don't have a tourney, period

Personally, I am opposed to this recommendation:

 

BBO certain has the option to create / enforce a standard set of regulation that would apply regardless of tournament type. However, in taking this step BBO would dramatically alter its relationship with both its customers and the WBF. By assuming this responsibility, BBO would (effectively) be asserting some kind of position as a sponsoring authority. I suspect that once BBO made a decision to cross this particular rubicon, they would slowly be dragged into more and more "political" issues. Its far from clear whether Fred/Uday/Sheri have any real interest in these types of issues.

 

I'm a strong supporter of the FD efforts that Fred has undertaken. However, I think making the system mandatory is a miserable way to increase the use of the application. I'd far rather see leader through example, with individuals users demonstrating the power and functional associated with the application. As I noted before, in conjunction with this we really want to ensure that FD gets integrated into the major teaching programs.

[inquiry]

i think any tourney on bbo should be sanctioned for disallowing FD... allow it or don't have a tourney, period

Personally, I am opposed to this recommendation:

 

BBO certain has the option to create / enforce a standard set of regulation that would apply regardless of tournament type. However, in taking this step BBO would dramatically alter its relationship with both its customers and the WBF. By assuming this responsibility, BBO would (effectively) be asserting some kind of position as a sponsoring authority. I suspect that once BBO made a decision to cross this particular rubicon, they would slowly be dragged into more and more "political" issues. Its far from clear whether Fred/Uday/Sheri have any real interest in these types of issues.

 

I'm a strong supporter of the FD efforts that Fred has undertaken. However, I think making the system mandatory is a miserable way to increase the use of the application. I'd far rather see leader through example, with individuals users demonstrating the power and functional associated with the application. As I noted before, in conjunction with this we really want to ensure that FD gets integrated into the major teaching programs.

I think you misunderstood jimmy's position. It wasn't that you HAD TO USE FD in a tourney, it was that tourneys could not OUTLAW the use of FD.

[hrothgar]

I think you misunderstood jimmy's position. It wasn't that you HAD TO USE FD in a tourney, it was that tourneys could not OUTLAW the use of FD.

You would be wrong in your assumption. (For what its worth, I agree that the expression "Make the system mandatory" was poorly chosen and see how you could have reached a mistaken conclusion)

 

With this said and done, I am discussing a basic conceptual point.

The core principle holds true regardless of what type of policies that BBO mandated.

[hotShot]

I don't think the FD feature has been noticed by the majoraty of BBO user. Many don't even know that a CC can be posted.

 

Perhaps a little front page advertising might be usefull.

Seems to me that this TD was not familiar with the use of FD, i prefer that view to thinking he is unfamiliar with posting his condition of contest.

[csdenmark]

I don't think the FD feature has been noticed by the majoraty of BBO user. Many don't even know that a CC can be posted.

 

Perhaps a little front page advertising might be usefull.

Seems to me that this TD was not familiar with the use of FD, i prefer that view to thinking he is unfamiliar with posting his condition of contest.

i prefer that view to thinking he is unfamiliar with posting his condition of contest

This last not I have checked and stated here too.

 

Dan is the one to blame here. In rules for the tourney they states that only complaints forwarded to their head-director are to be accepted. BBO Forum is simply wrong address for his complain.

 

He is also asked to help them to improve their rules by contacting them. Looks like he has preferred to raise his problems here instead to those persons who have asked for them.

 

That tourney has a very detailed set of rules uploaded. Much more than most tourney organizers.

[Sigi_BC84]

I don't think the FD feature has been noticed by the majoraty of BBO user. Many don't even know that a CC can be posted.

 

Perhaps a little front page advertising might be usefull.

FD has a few rough edges that should be taken off before "going mainstream" by heavily advertising the feature (one of them is the inability to restrict its use by hosts).

 

However it might not be a bad idea to educate TDs about FD, so that if it comes up in their tourneys they know what they're dealing with (and about the implication that the partnership can see their own explanations).

 

--Sigi