online bridge different from live bridge?

[mishovnbg]

Hi friends!

I think BBO self alerting is better than f2f screens alerting procedure, thanks to Fred and Uday. Lack of possibility to type alerting text before the bid is a bug and I hope Uday will clear it soon :P .

The big problem in my opinion with self alerting is most of players can't understand, that same alert is not to show what alerter holds in hand, but what same bid means by partnership agreements. If you have expert partner like Ben, things are even more complicate, because he can count deal, despite meaning of your bid by your agreements and can make unusual decision. May be directors need to add explanation about self arerting at the begining of tourney?

Another big problem with most of directors they can't switch from "player mode" to "director mode". The director can't be witness, even when he was at table!!! The director can make decisions, only when he was called at table by players, when opps are at table too and must receive explanations before to make a decision!!!. Making judments later, without presence of both contestants is simple unfair... Topfight similar director's mistakes made me 2 insteasd of 1 at topfight event :( .

 

Misho

[inquiry]

Making judments later, without presence of both contestants is simple unfair... Topfight similar director's mistakes made me 2 insteasd of 1 at topfight event

 

I happened to be kibitzing when the hand in question occurred. It is an interesting case study for directors, perhaps, and shows what is happening. On an earlier hand, the player who eventually called director, asked where the heart QUEEN was, and found it off side claimed down one. Turns out, the heart finessee need not be taken, because dummy had a good ♦ that allows the heart loser to be thrown away. This blind spot would have cost the declarer the contract and assured misho and his partner first place. But, not wanting to take advantage of a mental lapse perhaps, misho and his partner rejected the down one claim and asked about the good ♦. Declearer quickly claimed making. This turned a TOP (100%) matchpoint score into a bottom (0%). Perhaps this is a bit very high active ethics (after all, you are not suppose to save opponents from their only silly mental lapses). Fast forward two hands. The bidding goes...

 

1NT(11-15)- DBL - RDBL(*alert) - 2♠

Pass - 4♠ - DBL - ALL PASS

 

Four ♠ was the contract at 2/3 rds of the tables, only doubled at this one. The defense against 4♠ was brutal and precise, down three, the most down at any table. This would have been a top (100%) for Misho and his partner. Yet in the middle of the next round, the score was changed from the top to an AVERAGE by the director. The reason, is that the "redouble" was slow being explained. RDBL was transfer to club, but of course, it is possible the redouble might have been left in despite this (1NTx-XX) makes overtricks. North had six spades and no desire to play 1NTx-XX. If North had passed, it is not clear the biddign would have stopped short of 4♠ anyway, as south would have bid 2♥ and north would have pulled to 2♠, and south is likely to have jumped to 4♠ or bid 3♠, both would have been doubled for same top.

 

Finally, in a expert game, the REDOUBLE over 1NT-x in itself (but especially when highlighted as an alert) is self-alerting. This is not to suggest that correcting the result in itself was "wrong", but Misho's explaination suggest the result was corrected without consultation with him (his partner made the redouble, and I don't know if the director asked his partner about the timing of the alert and the explaination of the bid). But I think Misho's point should be heeded by the directors. Before changing a score based upon alleged mis-information, etc, you should hear from both sides. After all, it is only fair to hear from both sides. In this case, it is clear from the earlier hand that Misho and his partner practice very high ethics, and if they thought the correction wasn't justified on the second board, I suspect the director at least owed them a hearing on the subject.

 

Ben