Transfer preempts in ACBL tourneys

[glen]

A partnership continues to use transfer preempts in ACBL BBO tourneys even though at least one of players would be highly likely to know that these are not GCC legal. It is even marked on their cc.

 

Should the ACBL TDs allow this to continue, only adjusting when opponents complain and can show damage, or should a more pro-active approach be taken?

[jtfanclub]

Not only should the director be pro-active, but if the players continue to play it after being warned, they should be banned from playing ACBL tournaments here. If nobody ever calls about it, then I guess they'll never get warned, and there won't be a problem.

 

HOWEVER, there is no rule saying that the BBO 'club' can't play anything they want. And I don't think transfer overcalls are particularly exciting, not when 5-4 in known suits is legal (if 10+). It's worth petitioning them.

[glen]

I watch the partnership occasionally and in one case, a few weeks ago, a transfer preempt was opened, and the next player called the TD, and then waited for the TD. When the ACBL TD arrived, there was no public chat, and after a bit the next player made a bid and things continued without problem or any change.

 

As a spec, one wonders what one should do, if anything at all. In f2f, if a spec called a TD about an illegal convention, wouldn't the TD just tell them to be quiet, as they are just there to watch? Likewise should a spec email acbl@bridgebase.com, since it did not happen against them? What about the case where the "spec" was a player in the tourney in question, but the transfer preempt did not come up against them?

[the hog]

Why would you want to dissuade anyone from using transfer pre empts? I would be very pleased to encourage as many players as possible to use these against me. Transfer overcalls or better still canape overcalls....now there is a different kettle of fish.

[awm]

The really dangerous thing about transfer preempts is the frequent "forget." Basically it becomes multiple undisclosed "multi" type preempts (i.e. any preempt = either that suit or the next higher) with sort of random continuations by partner who may/may not remember... ;)

 

And strange as this sounds, I've had a professional player in a national event forget this immediately after giving the pre-alert. Dangerous stuff. Of course you can usually get a director to adjust.

[jtfanclub]

I watch the partnership occasionally and in one case, a few weeks ago, a transfer preempt was opened, and the next player called the TD, and then waited for the TD.  When the ACBL TD arrived, there was no public chat, and after a bit the next player made a bid and things continued without problem or any change.

 

The rule is, if it's in the GCC, clubs have to allow it (with a few exceptions, like 0-20 MP games). If it's not in the GCC, the clubs don't have to ban it. Even if they say it's a GCC-legal event, they don't have to announce the exceptions unless it's a sectional or regional.

 

If it bothers you, petition ACBL@bridgebase.org to be allowed to use transfer pre-empts. If they allow it, no problem. If they don't allow it, and they let this pair play it, then it's unfair competition (they can play things you can't) and you have standing to complain.

[bid_em_up]

HOWEVER, there is no rule saying that the BBO 'club' can't play anything they want.

 

Actually there is. If it is an ACBL sanctioned tourny, it is not a BBO club game. It has to abide by the ACBL tournament charts. Since it is not a restricted game (0-20 mp, making it a limited convention game), and it is not sectionally rated or higher, the GCC applies.

 

and

 

The rule is, if it's in the GCC, clubs have to allow it (with a few exceptions, like 0-20 MP games).  If it's not in the GCC, the clubs don't have to ban it.  Even if they say it's a GCC-legal event, they don't have to announce the exceptions unless it's a sectional or regional.

Not sure what you are trying to say.

 

The GCC says "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed".

 

Under opening bids, a transfer preempt is only allowed at the 4 level.

 

"OPENING FOUR-LEVEL BID transferring to a known suit.".

 

Under Mid-Chart tournies, transfer preempts are specifically allowed by #7:

 

"7. A transfer opening bid at the two-level or higher showing a weak bid in

the suit being transferred to or a type or types of strong hand."

 

And even in this case, the pair using this method must prealert the method, and provide an approved written defense.

 

Since the ACBL tournies are not Mid-Chart rated, these methods should not be allowable, imo. And if notified that the pair is playing these methods, the directors should inform them that they are not allowable.

 

jmoo.

[hrothgar]

Here's my take on matters.

 

1. The ACBL Online games hosted on BBO advertise that they are using the General Convention Chart. Its in the Tournament descriptions. Its annouced at the start of each tournament. It think that its reasonable to expect that the conditions of contest match the ones that are advertised.

 

2. I think that its useful to distinquish between an isolated infraction of the rules and repeat offenses. Assume for the moment that you have a first time offender... I think that its appropriate for the Director to consider that the board has been fouled and to assign an adjusted score. The Director should explain why the bid in question is verboten and refer the offending side to the an online copy of the GCC. In contrast, if the offending side had already been disciplined for the same infraction then you have a serious problem. I think that the best solution here is to ban the offending pair from the club for some period of time (1-2 monthes) and inform them that if they pull the same ***** again its going to be a six month ban. Three strikes and you're out...

[jtfanclub]

I'm sorry, I was thinking transfer overcalls. You're right, transfer pre-emptive openings are explicitly disallowed.

 

Since the ACBL tournies are not Mid-Chart rated, these methods should not be allowable, imo.

 

Well, I do stand by the gist of my statement. Since clubs are allowed to do anything they want as long as multiple-location tournaments include all of the General Convention Chart, you should ask to be alllowed to use transfer pre-empts. If the answer is no, you now have standing to complain.

[pbleighton]

"The rule is, if it's in the GCC, clubs have to allow it (with a few exceptions, like 0-20 MP games)."

 

I don't think this is true. Clubs can do anyting they like. They can require SAYC or ACOL for all pairs, or allow forcing pass systems.

 

Sectional and regionals do have to allow everything that's legal in the GCC.

 

The BBO ACBL tourneys have the GCC as the CoC, so they should allow all GCC-compliant bids, and disallow all which are not compliant. If they want to do a GCC plus approach, where certain non compliant bids are permitted, they should amend and publish the CoC.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

HOWEVER, there is no rule saying that the BBO 'club' can't play anything they want.

 

Actually there is. If it is an ACBL sanctioned tourny, it is not a BBO club game. It has to abide by the ACBL tournament charts. Since it is not a restricted game (0-20 mp, making it a limited convention game), and it is not sectionally rated or higher, the GCC applies.

Not quite...

 

1. As I understand matters, BBO's ACBL franchise is equivalent to the one's held by clubs. The regulatory structure that is used for regionals, sectionals, and the like doesn't really apply.

 

2. I can point to numerous examples where local districts have ammended the ACBL's convention charts to sanction or ban different pet treatments. District 25 has exceptions to the GCC that permit players to use SUCTION over the opponent's NT openings. Other districts have allowed the Kaplan inversion and a bunch of other stuff.

 

I think that the critical issue is consistency between the way the game is advertised and the way the rules are enforced.

[bid_em_up]

HOWEVER, there is no rule saying that the BBO 'club' can't play anything they want.

 

Actually there is. If it is an ACBL sanctioned tourny, it is not a BBO club game. It has to abide by the ACBL tournament charts. Since it is not a restricted game (0-20 mp, making it a limited convention game), and it is not sectionally rated or higher, the GCC applies.

Not quite...

 

1. As I understand matters, BBO's ACBL franchise is equivalent to the one's held by clubs. The regulatory structure that is used for regionals, sectionals, and the like doesn't really apply.

 

2. I can point to numerous examples where local districts have ammended the ACBL's convention charts to sanction or ban different pet treatments. District 25 has exceptions to the GCC that permit players to use SUCTION over the opponent's NT openings. Other districts have allowed the Kaplan inversion and a bunch of other stuff.

 

I think that the critical issue is consistency between the way the game is advertised and the way the rules are enforced.

Richard,

 

To me, the BBO games are a sanctioned tournament. For that tournament, the current CoC is that the GCC is in effect. That means, the GCC as written, not modified.

 

Now, we can certainly agree that this is modifiable, either by a club or a local district. However, in these cases, the club/district usually will hold some sort of internal referendum amongst its membership asking whether or not these methods should/should not be allowable. At the very least, the elected governing district board will take a vote amongst themselves, after having heard input from various members on the subject. Or there is a club manager that someone can ask "Can we play this", and the manager can say yes, no or maybe. However, if they say yes, it is playable by all members of that club. If they say maybe, they usually intend to take a poll of other members prior to giving a definitive answer. And if they choose to make such allowances for these methods, they must be published as part of the CoC for that particular club or district games/tournaments.

 

The ACBL tournaments on BBO have no such governing body, nor a means of taking such a referendum. I, for one, dont think that it is acceptable for any one person to be modifying the structure of the GCC to accomodate any particular method or pair, without being able to receive input from the overall "membership".

 

That said, I would much rather see the CoC changed to Mid-Chart, which would solve this problem, along with multi not being allowed, but could lead to other problems that I am unaware of.

 

still jmoo.

[Guest Jlall]

Yes, ACBL on bbo is like a bridge club and can ban or allow things as they see fit, however since they advertise that they use the GCC they should follow it.

[blackshoe]

ACBL on BBO is, in effect, a club.

 

Convention regulations are a prerogative of sponsoring organizations (Law 40D).

 

Clubs are sponsoring organizations.

 

Ergo, what conventions are allowed in ACBL on BBO games are up to that "club".

 

The club has stated that the GCC governs all its games.

 

Transfer preempts are allowed on the GCC only at the four level (Item 9 under "allowed").

 

Ergo, Transfer preempts other than at the four level are not allowed in ACBL on BBO tourneys.

 

Playing an illegal convention is an infraction of Law 40D, an irregularity. When an irregularity occurs, attention need not be drawn to it (Law 9A1), however if attention is drawn, the director must be called (law 9B1(a)).

 

Generally speaking, it is to your advantage not to allow opponents to play illegal conventions.

 

Therefore, you should call attention to the fact that their convention is illegal, and having done so, the director must be called, so it might as well be you who calls him.

 

Quod erat demonstrandum. :-)

[blackshoe]

Addendum: if the ACBL games on BBO were equivalent to Sectional (or higher) ACBL Tournaments, then I would expect the ACBL to require that they be directed by certified ACBL TDs, who are employees of the ACBL. To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case, so I don't believe that one can argue that the games are so equivalent.

[Gerben42]

If you set rules for a tournament and don't apply them, why have them in the first place?

 

Step 1: Director warns the pair that their conv. is not allowed and forces them to change their CC for the rest of the tournament.

 

Step 2: If the pair uses the conv., remove them from the tournament

 

Step 3: If the pair still doesn't get it, blacklist them.

 

I've been forced to take step 1 once, we had to change our CC for the rest of the tournament. It turned out however that the TD was incorrect and he apologized the next tournament we met, and we happily played the same system ever after :blink:

[Jacki]

Maybe I'm reading something wrong or not looking closely enough, but I don't see anything from the original poster here indicating at what level this opening transfer preempt was made.

 

So, first, an opening four-level bid that transfers to a known suit is perfectly legal under the ACBL GCC.

 

And second, anyone at any time is welcome to write to ACBL@bridgebase.com with any question about allowed bidding, play or anything else bridge related whether they are actually playing in a game, watching a game or just curious.

 

Jacki :)

[sceptic]

I think the ACBL should do what is right, if they set rules and guidelines, they they should be very strict in enforcing them there rules, or what hope do they have of anyone taking them seriously.

 

Their members are paying good money to get what they want, just to do the right thing for the sake of their own reputation (though judging by some of the posters comments on here over the years, they don't have much of a reputation to tarnish)

[glen]

Maybe I'm reading something wrong or not looking closely enough, but I don't see anything from the original poster here indicating at what level this opening transfer preempt was made.

By 2NT and 3X, so:

 

2NT = ♣ preempt

3♣ = ♦ preempt

3♦ = ♥ preempt

3♥ = ♠ preempt

 

The last I saw, the person playing these, who seems to use them with a set of partners, has removed "transfer preempts" from the cc in use, but continues to make these transfer openings.

[hrothgar]

The last I saw, the person playing these, who seems to use them with a set of partners, has removed "transfer preempts" from the cc in use, but continues to make these transfer openings.

Glen:

 

Have you taken up this issue with the folks who actually run the ACBL tournaments? Gweny and the other ACBL TDs don't typically participate in these forums.

 

Posting messages on the BBO forums isn't an effective way to raise these types of issues. Email is probably your best best.

[glen]

Well the question I posed here has not been answered by anybody yet:

As a spec, one wonders what one should do, if anything at all.  In f2f, if a spec called a TD about an illegal convention, wouldn't the TD just tell them to be quiet, as they are just there to watch?  Likewise should a spec email acbl@bridgebase.com, since it did not happen against them?  What about the case where the "spec" was a player in the tourney in question, but the transfer preempt did not come up against them?

So the purpose of posting on the forum was not to resolve the issue, but to understand if sending an email would be appropriate.

[jdonn]

Well the question I posed here has not been answered by anybody yet:

As a spec, one wonders what one should do, if anything at all.  In f2f, if a spec called a TD about an illegal convention, wouldn't the TD just tell them to be quiet, as they are just there to watch?  Likewise should a spec email acbl@bridgebase.com, since it did not happen against them?  What about the case where the "spec" was a player in the tourney in question, but the transfer preempt did not come up against them?

So the purpose of posting on the forum was not to resolve the issue, but to understand if sending an email would be appropriate.

For certain a spec should not call a director to the table, either ftf or online. As far as letting them know later, it seems reasonable to me as long as the spec has taken the care to be SURE he is right about what is being played and that it is illegal, which it seems you have, or at least are in the process of doing.

[hrothgar]

Well the question I posed here has not been answered by anybody yet:

As a spec, one wonders what one should do, if anything at all.  In f2f, if a spec called a TD about an illegal convention, wouldn't the TD just tell them to be quiet, as they are just there to watch?  Likewise should a spec email acbl@bridgebase.com, since it did not happen against them?  What about the case where the "spec" was a player in the tourney in question, but the transfer preempt did not come up against them?

So the purpose of posting on the forum was not to resolve the issue, but to understand if sending an email would be appropriate.

If you want to be technical about things, spectators do not have the legal standing to draw attention to an iregularity.

 

Law 11 states

 

B. Irregularity Called by Spectator

 

1. Spectator Responsibility of Non-Offending Side

 

The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the non-offending side is responsible.

 

2. Spectator Responsibility of Offending Side

The right to correct an irregularity may be forfeited if attention is first drawn to the irregularity by a spectator for whose presence at the table the offending side is responsible.

[Jacki]

Although the forum posters are correct about kibitzer's rights and they MAY be ignored by a TD if called by them, I think it's perfectly acceptable for anyone at all to draw attention to an illegality or irregularity, particularly if it appears to be ongoing.

 

If this means the person seeing this irregularity calls attention to it after the fact, since they may have no right to call at the time it happens, isn't that better than not reporting it at all?

 

We have a great many players in our games, some of the games are quite large, some of them are quite fast and some are both large AND fast. This means that a TD cannot see what's going on at each table all the time or even most of the time. The TDs rely on player's calls to adjudicate. The ACBL Coordinator on BBO relies on email feedback to attempt to fix ongoing or budding problems.

 

So, if the question was, should a spectator write to ACBL@bridgebase.com to point out what appears to be an ongoing irregularity in the bidding? Then the answer is: Absolutely. Just as someone seeing a violation of BBO rules on language may report the incident to abuse@bridgebase.com even though they were not directly involved in the incident themselves.

 

Jacki :)

[blackshoe]

If a kibitzer brought to my attention as TD a possible infraction in an ongoing game, I would be annoyed at his violation of Law 76 (which basically tells him to keep his mouth shut), while constrained by Law 81C6 to deal with the infraction. I might ban for cause such a person from kibitzing future sessions . If a kibitzer brought to my attention the possibility of long-term misunderstanding of the conditions of contest or of cheating, after the correction period for the current session has expired, I would be happy to investigate.

 

In the case at hand, if the question is "how should a kibitzer handle this in ACBL tournaments on BBO?" I would suggest an email to acbl@bbonline.com, or whatever the correct address is.

 

I would also suggest such an email if a kibitzer feels that a TD has incorrectly allowed the use of an illegal [sic] convention. After all, TDs are human. If I made that mistake, I'd certainly want to be made aware that it was a mistake, so that I could correct it. It is not, however, a kibitzer's place to tell me so - that is the prerogative of the CTD or the SO.