Problematic Ruling

[hrothgar]

I just ran into what I consider to be a highly problematic ruling:

 

I was playing in a tournament with a strong partner, playing in a quite strong field. At least half of the participants are rated as "Stars". Partner and I are doing reasonably well and playing against a couple strong Germans.

 

During the course of the hand one of the opponents gets disconnected. The second players wishes to wait for his partner to return, but is eventually subbed out by the director. Partner and I are now playing against a pick-up partnership.

 

Said partnership scores very poorly against us on their first board, playing in 5♥ when half the field is making a grand. Roughly 5 minutes later, the director adjusts that board to 6♥=, explaining that it was "unfair" for my partner and I to benefit from this pairs mistake.

 

From my perspective, this ruling is highly problematic. Partner and I had large near top taken away from us. Another pair who were lucky enough to defeat 7H scored an enormous +16 IMPs on this hand.

 

I will note in passing that this pair achieve exactly 1 positive score during the remaining 7 boards of the tournament (+.1) and was tossing some pretty big scores to anyone lucky enough to play them.

 

I feel that we received an incredible arbitrary ruling based solely on the fact that we were the first pair to play against this partnership. I also believe that the director clearly exceeded his authority. If a director believes that results should be smoothed, he should chose an IMP algorithm that throw out the top 1-2 scores in either direction rahter than playing god with table results.

 

It is, however, possible that I am too close to the problem.

I invite comments.

[jillybean]

Let me get this clear, the 5♥ was bid by the original pair then completed by a sub? Or the board was completed by the original pair and subsequently adjusted?

 

In either case I do not think it is within the TD's powers to change the result of a completed board.

 

One exception to this is when a sub is brought in half way through a board and there was an obvious line remaining, the sub is not privy to this and so it is within the TD's powers to assign an actual result.

 

jb

[hrothgar]

Let me get this clear, the 5♥ was bid by the original pair then completed by a sub?

Half of 5♥ was bid by the original pair and half by the subs

[inquiry]

At the risk of making some of my fellow TD's angry, "what the heck kind of ruling is this?" What was the law that condones this ruling? You did score +5.7 imps for this "correction" but still.

 

First off, these clearly were not substitutes, they were full replacement. As far as the standings are concerned, they will show up in the standings rather the pair they replaced. To change a bridge result from 5H+2 to 6H+1 is fairly unheard of. However, was the replacement during the auction, so that these guys have half an auction not theirs and half someone else? I might give both sides average plus or some similiar in that situation.

[cherdano]

I think Richard got several things wrong. 1st we were playing against a Norwegian pair, not a German one, 2nd he didn't have a strong partner, he was playing with me.

 

I think director shouldn't have subbed at all, we had 12 min for two boards left, opponent asked to wait, and I told him I was ok waiting further, and it was in mid of a delicate cue-bidding sequence (and then subbed the partner when he wanted to wait for his p to return). Obviously the subs had no idea which trump suit was agreed etc,

so I would have understood if director had skipped this hand immediately. In fact, letting them play on without any explanation about agreements about the earlier auction seemed pretty careless.

 

I wasn't as upset about the adjustment. Of course there is no basis in the law for this, but earning 10 IMP for this particular auction would also have been silly.

 

Arend

[cherdano]

This was the auction, btw:

1S (alerted as unbalanced)-2H (SAYC style)

3C (alerted as GF)-3D

3H-4D (alerted as cuebid)

subs coming in

4N-5H (apparently ws neither meant nor understood as rkcb answer)-AP

[jillybean]

I think director shouldn't have subbed at all, we had 12 min for two boards left, opponent asked to wait, and I told him I was ok waiting further, and it was in mid of a delicate cue-bidding sequence (and then subbed the partner when he wanted to wait for his p to return). Obviously the subs had no idea which trump suit was agreed etc,

so I would have understood if director had skipped this hand immediately. In fact, letting them play on without any explanation about agreements about the earlier auction seemed pretty careless.

That is different now, Law12A2 applies where 'Normal Play of the Board Is Impossible' and the TD should award an artificial adjusted score (12C1)

A+ for a contestant at no way in fault, so A+ for both pairs - as Ben said :huh:

 

jb

[Limey_p]

(I don't know if the software supports this ...)

 

Another possibility to get a result on the board is to restart the bidding before the subs sit down. Then they can have an entire sequence of their own.

 

AP

[hotShot]

The concept of subbing is flawed, but what is the alternative?

 

The correct way to handle the problem of loosing players would be, to replace the pair with sitouts, cancel the board and remove all scores of this pair from previous boards. When a tourney has 2 sitout pairs, they can be eliminated when the next round is seated.

 

Of cause the downside is, that the partner of the disconnected player is out of the tourney too.

[helene_t]

I kinda understand the ruling since the auction looked reasonably controlled and would probably have led to the normal 6♥ if bid by the original pair who presumably had agreed what kind of ace-asking they play. Maybe they would have bid 6♥ but then Richard and Arend get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Another thing: it would be correct to assign ave+ to Richard and Arend, which is probably close to the result they got.

 

But of course, there is no basis for this ruling in the law. Also, I think that somewhere on the BBO pages it is recomended that such a board being thrown out.

[luis]

What kind of tea do you like Richard? :-)

[calabres]

Hi friends

 

The pair subed was neither German or Norwegian.

They will no doubt bid 7♥, I know they will.

I know that because they have enough bridge knowledges to bid the grand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course the TD will keep the result, if looking for the board, the bid was very diferent from table to table.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the board was so flat that like everybody knows all tables had bidid 6♥ or 7♥.

Only the pair of subs, that faced a bid that was at the time at level 4, by unagreement about what they both play stop the auction in 5♥.

I do not know if the ruling was permited by the "books" or not.

An Average ++ seems to me unfair too for both sides, cause like i said previously, the board will be bided by all in 6 or 7.

Im sure the adjustment for 6♥+1 was the most fair for all, and for tourney comparation of the board.

Cherdano was advised previouly to the adjustment, that will be the most fair for all to adjust to 6, and the answer was an "yes".

Adjustment made, and Hrothgar disagrees, was in his right, but I fell that unfair will be to keep the result, and by a terrible mistake made by subs, to afford a lot of IMPs that in reality will not belong to them. (Im just talking only of what is fair or not, and not about the ruling itself).

Online Directing has this stanges situations, The TDs make their best efforts to do the best they can, and in free tourneys, it was understandable that any Club cant pay to professional TDs, am I right?

 

I have the highest respect for the work , may be sometimes with some mistakes, to the BBO TDs, that work hardly some hours per day organizing tourneys for BBO comunity of players can have fun and improve the game between their partnerships.

They only expect from all consideration for their efforts and work. (Im speeking for myself).

 

Best regards

[calabres]

Sorry

 

I forget one thing.

 

I want to excuse myself if the adjustment maid was a so TERRIBLE option, if all feel that.

 

But i have my conscience clean about the matter, cause was maid with the BEST OF INTENTIONS.

 

Good luck all in your life and bridge ventures.

 

Big hug

[jillybean]

Ah, there are always many sides to a story :D

This is far from a terrible TD ruling and I don’t think anyone has said it was.

 

I think TD’s would be wrong to make decisions based on personal knowledge of the players. “They will no doubt bid 7♥, I know they will” and also make an assumption that an unplayed board would end in a certain result, no misplay, inattention from either side.

 

Online TD’ing is full of strange and unfair situations, people get disconnected, misclick, the phone rings, someone is upset about a comment and so bids 7NXX on the next board. The TD can only apply the laws the best they can.

 

I'm sure professional TDs are human too, otherwise there would be no appeal committees :D

 

jb

[Echognome]

I think the discussion here is how a TD should rule according to the laws of bridge. I'm fairly sure the laws hadn't really taken account of one player getting ill in the middle of an auction and a new partner having to step in. So, it is probably fair to say that the board is fouled through no fault at least of Richard and Arend. Whether you determine if a disconnection is the fault of the pair getting disconnected is another story. I might have awarded avg+/avg=. Now, this determination should be done immediately. That is, the player who's partner got subbed should call the TD and say "we are in the middle of a complicated sequence, so perhaps we can average this board?" At the very least, the player should call at the end of the auction before the lead and say "something is wrong". But, if the players played out the hand and then got the result and then decided it was no good, that would be too late for me.

[keylime]

This is the same type of ruling I get at the club with some regularity and it bothers me greatly. Law 12 was NOT designed for this situation in particular; subbing is definitely a unique challenge.

 

Recently I nearly had to get indignant (which is pretty rare these days) at a director for trying to tell me that over 1d-p-1s-2nt (clubs and hearts)-3d-p-3h, that 3h should be alerted to my opponents. I got a hand that over pard's rebid of 3D might have slam or 3NT in the offering. I wasn't real happy trust me.