LA?

[jillybean]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s542haqj72dj87cq3&w=saj863h5dkt5ct742&e=skt7h9863d642cakj&s=sq9hkt4daq93c9865]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     Pass

 Pass  1♥*    Pass  3♥**

 Pass  Pass  Dbl+  Pass

 3♠    Pass  Pass  Pass

 

 

* can be so weak

** limit raise

+ pause before double

 

I caught the tail end of this hand in a BBO tournament today, North called the TD after there was an obvious break in tempo before Easts double of 3♥. North suggested the BIT was unauthorized information for W and pass was a logical alternative.

fwiw the TD told North to send a report to abuse and asked the players to continue.

 

I find these types of calls very interesting, does the pause suggest bidding over a pass here?

West knows East has 3+♥, pass is a LA but I don’t think the pause suggests bidding here.

 

I’d be interested to hear what my more learned forum members think?

I didn’t talk to the players at all about their agreements or meaning of ‘so weak’

 

 

tyia :)

jb

[pigpenz]

would a fast double have been any better?

I see nothing wrong with 3♠ bid!

and nothing wrong with east thinking before he doubles, he is taking a risk by taking any action other than pass. Maybe he was lucky this time but such will not always be the case.

 

looks like the only thing that partner can have that will help is five card spade suit or five card minor

[zielona]

Not even trying to analyse the hand, I would like to know what is the general opinion about connecting break in tempo with unauthorised information.

BBO is so open for cheating that from the td perspective we just must to assume honesty. most players are honest because they know it's not fun otherwise.

Break in tempo most likely comes from:

knock on the door

cat asking for a cuddle

phone ringing

virus check offering its services

etc etc

 

is it worth to try to draw conclusions?

[jillybean]

Hi zielona,

 

I think there are 2 schools of thought here

 

1. The BIT could have been caused by an outside influence so we will disregard all BIT

 

2. BIT occurred, we will review auction and the use of the BIT.

 

Me.., I follow #2.

 

jb

[mr1303]

Break in tempo and other similar UI things aren't a matter for abuse IMO, it's a job for the director at the time to sort out.

 

Anyway, no adjustment on this board. If double is penalty, 3H is 2 off at least, and if double is take-out, then there's no alternative to 3S.

 

It would be a more interesting problem if the BIT was before WEST's pass.

[Finch]

To be honest, the main thing a BIT before the double suggests to me is that East wasn't sure if it was take-out or penalties (and I can't tell by looking at his hand, either!).

 

So I don't think the slow double really suggests anything to West.

 

I would be much more dubious about a very slow pass from West followed by an action by East; so much so that I would probably adjust.

[Walddk]

My turn to agree 100% with what Frances said. We should have a game soon, but as far as I recall, you don't play online bridge at all :unsure:

 

If you make an exception to your rule, I might even agree on playing Acol for the occasion. I will suffer, yes, but I will likely survive the ordeal ;)

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

fwiw the TD told North to send a report to abuse and asked the players to continue.

From my perspective, the most interesting issue with this case is the suggestion that the whole thing should be forwarded on to abuse. This looks like a fairly routine problem. I'd expect to see a ruling generated by the tournament director. Instead, he/she seemed to run away from the issue. I've occasionally wondered whether it would make sense to make some radical changes to the organizational structure for online tournaments.

 

Back when I played bridge in the ACBL organizing a tournament required two very different types of people.

 

1. You required a small number of knowledgable TDs would would adminster rulings at the table, run appeals committees, etc.

 

2. You required a large number of people who provided the unskilled labor: Setting up chairs, collecting entries, making coffee, placing movement cards.

 

This model doesn't seem to be used in Online Bridge. TD's are responsible for two very divergent roles: They spend most of their time dealing with mechanical issues (primarily subsitutions and announcements); however, they are also expect to be able to generate complex rulings at the table.

 

Why not recognize this demarcation more explicitly and virtualize the role of the Tournament Director? Here's one possible implementation:

 

Tournament Directors have the option of joining on or more TD pools. A "pool" is a group of TDs that agrees to provide technical services for BBO tournaments. Pools can differentiate themselves based on a variety of dimensions: (Language profiency, formal certification, regulatory regime, fee structure, hours of service, etc.)

 

Assume for the moment that I want to create a tournament: I am going serve as a Tournament Facilitator. As TF, I am going to select the time for the tournament, make sure everyone understands the rules, handle substitutions, try to speed along rounds, and all of those other non-technical issues that don't require any deep experience with the Laws. If a TF wants, they have the option to serve as both the Tournament Director and the Tournament Facilitator. However, a TF also has the option on contracting with a TD pool to provide technical assistance if and when they encounter a more complicated problem. In an ideal world this type of system would allow a TD pool to support multiple different tournaments at the same time.

 

You can almost think of this type of system as Tier 1 and Tier 2 tech support...

 

This system has some very nice technical properties: Most notably, a small pool of TD's can support a much large number of players than the one-to-one system that is currently in use.

[zielona]

Excellent Hrothgar

 

I love the idea and, provided that you throw in ability to make adjustments - to either ave or a score, I am applying for the TF position.

 

If you have read the very new topic "when a psyche is psyche" in "general bridge discussion" you'd find a great example of a very good TF who is trying to be a TD.

 

On the other hand, I came across a TD this morning who should NOT be a TF.

A good night sleep behind me, I decided to be a nice girl and joined the sub list of an indy rock around the clock, unclocked, with 9 tables left. I was put in a seat immediately. Second last round. North. The clock was -2. The only bid so far was from my p, south. West was not red although clearly absent. I learned that TD had been informed but did not replace west. Previous north was impatient and ran. TD replaced him with me. With the clock -5 east ran. I called TD and explained the situation. TD replaced east. I talked to td again, even suggested adjusting to ave so other tables who had finished that round and were waiting for us could progress, and then deal with dead west. No action. I apologized and left. I waited a while and re-logged in. My coffee mug was nearly empty and I still didn't have my breakfast game of bridge. BBO put me in the same seat. The clock was -11. East ran. New sub was put in east seat. More conversations with TD followed, polite. With clock -18 I left for good. Coffee was all gone and so I decided that spider solitaire will have to do as my breakfast treat.

 

That was possibly a good TD but zero TF.

[helene_t]

Nice idea, Richard.

 

As for the hand posted: This does not come anywhere near a reason for adjustment:

 

The BIT suggests that East wasn't sure what a double should show in this position and/or that the hand was borderline. "Borderline" could be less spade tollerance than an ideal double, less tollerance for either or both minor suits than an ideal double, less defense against 3♥ than an ideal double, or less HCPs than an ideal double. Only if West could see in his own cards which of the four applies (not the case here) and if EW where known to have a common understanding of what hand would be an ideal dbl (not likely to be the case even if EW is a semi-advanced semi-regular partnership).

 

Result stands.

 

Finally: it's not a good idea to send such incidents to "abuse". Abuse is concerned with deliberate cheating, harrasment etc., not with minor ethical issues.

[blackshoe]

Agree sending this to abuse is a waste of abuse's time and a copout by the TD.

 

Hrothgar's "TF" seems to be the Laws' "SO" (see Law 80).

[pclayton]

To be honest, the main thing a BIT before the double suggests to me is that East wasn't sure if it was take-out or penalties (and I can't tell by looking at his hand, either!).

 

So I don't think the slow double really suggests anything to West.

 

I would be much more dubious about a very slow pass from West followed by an action by East; so much so that I would probably adjust.

Ditto.

 

If West hitched, then I'd adjust to 3♥ making whatever.

 

East made an agressive call that worked out.

[hallway]

Richard's suggestion works perfectly I have been running the BIL tourneys that way since 'day 1'.

 

Just hadn't thought of the names.

 

I Host the tourneys and together with the BIL Directors (TF's) we run the tourneys.

 

The BIL Honorary members serve as the learned "TD Pool".

 

When we have a nitty gritty decision to make we hit the Lobby button scan the Hons online , see who seems to be free and message them 'can you help with a TD decision?". If they respond in the affirmative we add them to the tourney and await their ruling.

 

Meantime we message the table/player " have consulted upon high will get back to you with the ruling in due course , play on"

 

When the ruling is passed down the player/s are informed and if necessary the "TF" makes the appropriate adjustment . End of problem.

 

We have always done it that way because we know that we know nothing and can therefore be nothing better than (extremely competent mind you ! ) TF's .

 

But I don't see why it shouldn't work just as seemlessly for those that know something. If nothing else it will give the TD/TF some breathing space and the player a sense of being taken seriously.

[inquiry]

First, I would want to talk the director.... ABUSE is really quite busy dealing with real issues. For a director, whose JOB IT IS TO MAKE A RULING, to tell a player to refer this to abuse is really unforgivable. If the director wants to direct, fine direct, if not, they should not be directors.

 

Second, there can be no correction here...RHO has a right in balance seat to make a double, and WEST with five spades has a right to decide to pull. But what if LHO passes? 3♥ is surely off one and probably off two. (♣-♣-♣ ruff.. then lose 2♠, 1♦ and dummy forced to ruff another ♣ so a trump loser materializes for -300).

 

Jeez....

[bid_em_up]

Although West should know that East is likely to have 3 or 4 hearts, there is no way I would ever consider a pass by west to be a logical alternative.

[Codo]

First: The TF /TD Idea is mavellous.

Second: TD idea with abuse was silly.

 

Third: You have about 1 and a hlaf def. tricks with West.

IF East had doubled for blood, you would never run.

 

As AI you know, that East has a hand close to an opening with some Hearts. He did not double 1 Heart, so he has no clear take out.

The Hesitation shows that he does not hold a trump stack or a clear penalty double. So bidding 3 Spade is much easier then without the hesitation.

 

But I would explain N/S that they won`t win anything in 3 Heart X. This is at least one, maybe two or even more down. So in a f2f tournement, I would ask several other players, if they would bid 3 Spade after the double (Without the hesitation). If there is no vote for passing (really possible), I would let the score stand, else judge for 3 HeartX -2- which is worse for N/S but I cannot believe, that they can emerge with 8 tricks.

 

I don´t have this possibility at bbo, so I would rule: Result stands, but with much less confidence then all of you.

[A2003]

deleted.