Qualified TDs

[manig]

Both vul, MPs, p-p-p-1d, Dbl-3D- both I and my pd wanted to know if 3D is preempt, which we believe should be disclosed. 3D bidder refused and said Support ( what a good info). TD ruled in her favor saying she does not need to disclose anymore. I think this TD is totally un-qualified ( this is not the 1st time she made this kinda of ruling) as this TD does not know the basics of directing. Pls either check the TDs ( qualifications) or start a forum etc where players can register this. Thanks

[jtfanclub]

I assure you that they're all qualified- it doesn't take much to direct club games. (I direct ACBL games, but not online)

 

I would suggest sending an email to ACBL@bridgebase or Gweny@bridgebase. Only if they can't help you should you take it here, in my opinon.

I believe you are right, though- you have the right to a hcp range, and you shouldn't need to specifically ask for that.

[mycroft]

There is a difference between Alertable (which, at least FTF, 1D-X-3D no longer is, no matter what the meaning, as long as it shows diamonds), and disclosable. Full Disclosure is a right - even if the bid isn't Alertable, you are entitled to the explanation if you with (with whatever information the request passes to partner being unauthorized).

 

"Support" isn't a full explanation. You are entitled to a full explanation. If, however, you said to the TD, "this should be Alerted", and she said "No, it isn't necessary anymore", then she is completely correct (in other words, the exact words of the conversation are important. I'm not saying that's what you did, or what you didn't do, but I have had players come to me about things like this and I find out that the question wasn't what the player thought he was asking).

 

Michael.

[hrothgar]

Hi Manig

 

Its useful to spend some time studying the ACBL's web site. It often contains useful information dealing with these sorts of issues. In this case, your best best is to reference the ACBL's "Alert Proceedures" which are available at

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

 

I'm going to quote directly from this page:

 

Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction belongs to everyone at the table.

Remember that the opponents are entitled to know the agreed meaning of all calls.

 

The bidding side has an obligation to disclose its agreements according to the procedures established by ACBL.

 

When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.

 

The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.

 

Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

 

Hope that this is helpful

[glen]

I was talking to a semi-pro hockey ref today, and he told me that a screaming swearing crowd gets a ref going – the ref does not want to make a mistake and wants to catch what needs to be caught. However I don’t think screaming bridge players will work the same, either during the tourney, or afterward on some forum to register suspect rulings.

 

Jtfanclub had it right – email acbl@bridgebase.com, nicely describe the complete hand and what occurred, and the date/hand number etc for the details. You might not be aware of this email address, as it is not announced during tourneys, but now you do, and if you can, pass it along. As to the problem, the 3♦ bidder should have described their agreement, but I would have to see the chat log before I could guess the TD handled it wrong in some way. Personally I’ve had good success in obtaining the help of TDs in finding out stealth agreements, albeit they can be quite busy from time-to-time and sometimes pulling the agreement out of the opponents takes a few tugs. An online club owner has suggested that it is not necessary for players of strong calibre to endeavour to find out these agreements, but I feel if there is an agreement that it should be provided if asked for, and that TDs should have the time available to assist in this.

[zielona]

One information is missing in the description of the problem - was it a pairs event?

[manig]

Some of you had good suggestions etc. but wanted to know specifics so here it is. Tourny # 880 hand 10--on Jan19-Fri-ACBL-8pm--Match-points both-Red.

As stated before passed hand had

3D bidders hand S-xxx, H-10xx. D-AKxx, C-xxx.

So after P-P-1D-DBL, 3D- my pd & I asked several times & reply was initilly "support" and later after a few prodding reply was "support and I am a passed hand". When pd/I called Td she said that all we are entititled to. I asked can we know is this preempt or limit she said "NO". I think this is a very basic and TD should be able to decide as we are CERTAINLY entitled to know if 3d is weak or limit as most play weak but some as here was playing it as a limit raise. If a td does not know this very simple fact, he/she is then un-qualified--notwithstanding the fact--stated by some--that being td in acbl-bbo-tournys-is piece of cake ( seems sonme can't handle even that!!).

[jtfanclub]

--that being td in acbl-bbo-tournys-is piece of cake ( seems sonme can't handle even that!!).

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that being a td was a piece of cake, I meant that becoming qualified to be a club td was a piece of cake.

 

 

Did you try sending an email to acbl@bridgebase.com? What was response?