How far can a bbo director go?

[Old York]

Hi

 

Thanks for all the input, but I will always continue to adjust scores and report deliberate sabotage bids to abuse@bbo.

 

There are very few examples of good re-doubles. I had one tonight by Cuteboy.

I had 4 examples of sabotage in the same tournament. I applaud Cuteboys bid.

I deplore sabotage bids as they adversly affect everyone's scores.

 

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant. If you make a doubled contract then you are likely to score a top anyway.

 

I love to see greedy re-doubles backfire, after 2 passes one player re-doubled, only to find oppo saving in 5 diamonds, doubled and making

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant. If you make a doubled contract then you are likely to score a top anyway.

Your second sentence is true. Your first, containing as it does an invalid assumption, is false.

 

As for the games you run, do whatever the hell you like. You will anyway.

[NickRW]

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

 

xx = anything where we will probably make

bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N

pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

 

My judgement on what will make opposite a weak NT is about right - I guess we come out making 7+ tricks at least 2/3rds of the time for what is usually a top - or, of course, a bottom when I'm wrong.

 

In truth, LHO often doesn't sit for the redouble anyway.

 

I agree that sensible redoubles are not that common - indeed doubles aren't too common either, so they wouldn't be of course.

 

Nick

[jillybean]

<rant>

I think everyone would agree that the player who bids 7NXX or other purely destructive bids should be banished from BBO. No one wants these people in their tournament, at their table or the adjacent one.

 

Changing the rules of the game is not going to stop these people from getting angry and bidding 7NXX, abusing their partner, quitting mid game, doubling all opps contracts to ‘pay back’ partner and so on.

 

Introducing rules ‘no XX, no psyches, alert all artificial bids’ is pointless at best, at worst it further destoys the game.

 

</rant>

[olegru]

Thanks for all the input, but I will always continue to adjust scores

...

Tony (Duke of York)

Hi Tony,

I guess grand slams on your tournament banned too?

Seriously, first time ever, I decided to log off during the tournament.

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1211938281

I came to tournament as a substitute current round. No bidding discussed.

Bidding:

 

1h -pass - 2d - pass

3c - pass - 4NT - pass

7d - dbl - all pass

 

My hand

s. x

h. AKQxxxx

d. K10xxx

c. -

 

Clubes lead, made 13.

 

No questions from TD, but result adjusted 7d -1 without any notice or explanation.

 

Any ideas why?

[TylerE]

Frankly, if TDs are really making such poor adjustments, I think they should have their TD permissions stripped. I know BBO doesn't police the TDs, but perhaps they should. I don't quite get the mindset of people who play tourneys, but are so concerned that the opponents might actually outplay them.

[hotShot]

Hi Tony,

I guess grand slams on your tournament banned too?

Seriously, first time ever, I decided to log off during the tournament.

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1211938281

I came to tournament as a substitute current round. No bidding discussed.

Bidding:

 

1h -pass -  2d - pass

3c - pass - 4NT - pass

7d - dbl - all pass

 

My hand

s. x

h. AKQxxxx

d. K10xxx

c. -

 

Clubes lead, made 13.

 

No questions from TD,  but result adjusted 7d -1 without any notice or explanation. 

 

Any ideas why?

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.

If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

 

I bet that opps argued that because you promised to have ♣'s, leading ♣ is more attractive than leading ♠A (winning a ♠ trick).

This is plausible enough to claim damage.

[helene_t]

There are very few examples of good re-doubles.

That may or may not be true, but in either case it suffices to say "no sabotage bids allowed". There is no reason to single out redoubles.

 

It sounds as if you don't have time to investigate whether a particular call was made with the intension of sabotage (not allowed) or just plain stupidity (allowed) and that you therefore default to the simple no-redoubles rule. I can understand if you don't have time to investigate all dubious calls in depth but in that case I think you should just refrain from enforcing your no-sabotage-bids policy (unless of course in cases of obvious sabotage).

[olegru]

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.

Alerts for agreements not for cards.

If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

 

I didn't claim anything because nobody bothered to ask me any questions before make an adjustment. At very least director must ask us about meaning of bidding before ajust anything based on asumpted misinformation.

 

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a psyche.

 

Do opponents have rights to ask for adjustment if anybody will bid NT without stopper? Will give 2 cards support? Will make a false cue bid? Will bid 7 knew about missing Ace?

[barmar]

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

 

xx = anything where we will probably make

bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N

pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

I wonder if this would fall within the spirit of what the "no redoubles" tournaments would allow. While the redouble isn't strictly artificial, it's part of a conventional runout system -- it's the only way to allow partner to play 1NT when they double for penalty.

 

I'm not sure I've played against any weak NT players who don't use this redouble, it's such a logical approach. So if it's not allowed, the tournament is practically banning weak NT. While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

[Finch]

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant.

I strongly disagree with that statement. I like to play, opposite a weak NT doubled for penalties:

 

xx = anything where we will probably make

bid = 5 cards, we probably wouldn't have made 1N

pass = no 5 carder, we probably won't make, semi forcing unless partner is max and particularly well suited to NT and not got a 5 carder of their own.

I wonder if this would fall within the spirit of what the "no redoubles" tournaments would allow. While the redouble isn't strictly artificial, it's part of a conventional runout system -- it's the only way to allow partner to play 1NT when they double for penalty.

 

I'm not sure I've played against any weak NT players who don't use this redouble, it's such a logical approach. So if it's not allowed, the tournament is practically banning weak NT. While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

I'm not sure you have read the post carefully enough, there's nothing 'conventional' about the runout system, which could easily be summarised as:

 

xx = natural, strong

bids = natural, weak

pass = natural (not strong enough to xx, nothing suitable to bid)

 

Many weak NT players _do_ use a redouble as artificial here (e.g. showing a 5-card suit somewhere, requesting a 2C bid from opener). But I also like the 'natural' approach.

[helene_t]

While I don't personally play weak NT, and wouldn't mind not having to defend against them, i think THAT would be going too far.

Under the new laws, a SO can ban weak NT and I wouldn't be surprised if some will actually do so. Banning natural redoubles is obviously not allowed, although I suppose in theory one could ban any agreements about use of redoubles.

[Finch]

Hi

 

Thanks for all the input, but I will always continue to adjust scores and report deliberate sabotage bids to abuse@bbo.

Fine. Deliberate 'Sabotage' bids are already against the Laws. No-one objects to adjusting for those.

 

There are very few examples of good re-doubles.

.....

In a matchpoint tournament, re-doubles are 99% redundant. If you make a doubled contract then you are likely to score a top anyway.

 

There are plenty of good matchpoint redoubles. Here are the first eight reasons I have thought of to redouble for blood at matchpoints

 

i) The doubled contract will be an average

ii) The double was a stripe-tailed ape

iii) The doubled contract is not game and you think you are making game elsewhere (e.g. 1NT P 2C x, you want to play your 4-3 club fit, but worry that 3NT was making and 280 or so is no compensation)

iv) You aren't sure if you are making or not but want to put pressure on your opponents to pull

v) You suspect a take-out double is about to be passed for penalties, but you don't think your opponents know what pass of the redouble would mean (2S x xx ... what is pass next?). You wouldn't dare do this at imps but at matchpoints it's a possible psyche.

vi) Or similarly you want to slow the auction down by showing a good hand when you don't have one (2S x xx on a weak hand with spade support can be a very effective psyche)

vii) You want to set up a forcing pass auction to consult partner on whether to bid on or penalise (most common example is 1S x xx)

viii) You want to stop partner pulling - most commonly after a slam is Lightner doubled, you want to tell partner it's making so please don't pull to 6NT which might not be (typically RHO doubles for the lead of dummy's suit, but you also hold an undisclosed void in the suit)

[david_c]

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a psyche.

What was it then, a misclick?

[Finch]

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a  psyche.

What was it then, a misclick?

It might have been a misclick meaning to bid 4C.

 

As the poster said,

 

"I didn't claim anything because nobody bothered to ask me any questions before make an adjustment. At very least director must ask us about meaning of bidding before ajust anything based on asumpted misinformation."

[olegru]

I do not want to continue infinity thread about "no psyche game" (which simply is not a bridge game) but this particular bid is not even a  psyche.

What was it then, a misclick?

No. It was just a one bid available for me.

I know I will finally bid 6 or 7 diamonds.

I don’t know if hearts or diamonds bid of any level will be forcing for my partner. We have no agreements about splinters. (Remember, I just join as a substitute and have absolutely no ideas what is my partner’s style and how educated in bridge he is. I don’t even know if we are playing 2 over 1 or not.)

New suit without jump in this bidding must be forcing. I can not bid spades because partner could later correct final diamond contract to spades.

What left?

Direct jump to 6 or 7 diamonds or temporary 3 clubs and see what happened. Oh, sorry, I forgot about Blackwood. :)

OK, let see.

4NT just a plain stupid. Partners reply give me no useful information at all

7 diamond – wild.

6 diamond – too modest. Even worse because it could induce opponents to bid 6 spades.

3 clubs at least will be lead directing if opponents will sacrifice in spades.

 

You can call 3 clubs bid lead directing or tactical.

If you are really like you can call it even a psyche bid but truth is it is a normal bridge bid made to increase chances to win. I am sure in described circumstances it will be not a last choice for a number of a good players.

[blackshoe]

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.

If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

 

I bet that opps argued that because you promised to have ♣'s, leading ♣ is more attractive than leading ♠A (winning a ♠ trick).

This is plausible enough to claim damage.

Let's leave aside the question of a "no-psyche" tourney for a moment.

 

The argument you present in your first paragraph is nonsense. The requirement is to alert agreements, and Olegru clearly stated he and his partner didn't have any special agreement about the meaning of this bid. Therefore there can be no expectation it will be alerted.

 

It was a psyche if and only if Olegru did it deliberately, knowing that the other players at the table, including his partner, would take it as natural. Generally speaking, psyches are legal, and if he psyched that changes nothing I said above.

 

Now, if this was a "no-psyches" tournament, and Olegru psyched, clearly he's subject to whatever penalty the Tournament Organizer established for the offense. One thing though - Olegru was a sub. Did he know it was a no-psyches tournament?

 

IAC, it is unconscionable for a TD to make a ruling - any ruling - and not tell the players concerned what the ruling is and why he is making it.

 

The fact that players argue they were damaged does not obligate the TD to agree with them.

[1eyedjack]

The 3♣ bid was not alerted, so it should be natural, which it is not . The failure to alert an artificial bid, calls for a score adjustment, if opps where damaged.

If you claim that it is not artificial, than bidding 3♣ without a card in ♣ is regarded a psyche and in a "no psyche" tourney this calls for an adjusted score.

 

I bet that opps argued that because you promised to have ♣'s, leading ♣ is more attractive than leading ♠A (winning a ♠ trick).

This is plausible enough to claim damage.

Leaving aside the gross discourtesy on the part of the TD, "plausible" is not sufficient for such unilateral action.

 

Incidentally do you have some inside information that this was a no-psyche tourney? It was not mentioned in the OP.

 

Furthermore, it seems oxymoronic at best to host a goulash tourney that bans tactical bidding, but that is of course irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that while Edgar Kaplan once said (correctly, IMO) something to the effect that "partnership agreements are agreements between partners, not promises to opponents" some of the people organizing games on BBO want to make such agreements be those promises to opponents. That is not bridge, people. :angry: :( :)

[Old York]

Hi Tony,

I guess grand slams on your tournament banned too?

I Strongly resent the impliction that this adjustment occurred in any of my tournaments.

 

I suggest that you should have made some attempt to contact the tournament director who made this adjustment. Failing that, you should have contacted AnnC8, who was the Host of the Lion and Lamb Goulash # 711 in which you subbed. I cannot comment about the rules enforced in these respected tournaments.

As is always the case, you should read the tournament rules before agreeing to play, the fact that you subbed seems irrelevant.

 

Had this occurred in the Grand Old Duke of York Tournaments, I would have demanded that you explain your 3C bid, before making any decision. I would prefer a 4C splinter bid (alerted). I would also have questioned South about his double, if it were Lightner then it also should have been alerted. I would also ask North why he failed to cash his Ace.

 

Sounds to me like a comedy of errors all round. I would not have adjusted, but would warn all players to alert and explain their bids in future.

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

Ah! I've got it now! Self alerts online! Alert and explain every single call according to ... what? Partnership agreement? The intended meaning of the call? Pick one, I suppose.

 

:)

[olegru]

I suggest that you should have made some attempt to contact the tournament director who made this adjustment. Failing that, you should have contacted AnnC8, who was the Host of the Lion and Lamb Goulash # 711 in which you subbed. I cannot comment about the rules enforced in these respected tournaments.

 

Had this occurred in the Grand Old Duke of York Tournaments, I would have demanded that you explain your 3C bid, before making any decision. I would also have questioned South about his double, if it were Lightner then it also, should have been alerted. I would also ask North why he failed to cash his Ace.

 

Sounds to me like a comedy of errors all round. I would not have adjusted, but would warn all players to alert and explain their bids in future.

 

Tony (Duke of York)

I did :)

She reply adjustment was made her co-director Tony and it is up to him to adjust or adjust back. She didn't reply about his BBO nick name and I was not able to speak with him directly. I assumed you are that mysterious Tony, my sincere apologies if I was wrong.

I completely agree with the rest of your comment here except I am sure 3 clubs bid was NOT alterable there.

[hotShot]

Any ideas why?

You asked for ideas, I suggest 2. Don't blame me, if you don't like them.

 

Playing without agreements is not bridge.

Subbing into tourneys is covered by the bridge laws.

 

Playing cards without dbl or psyches is not bridge.

[hotShot]

The argument you present in your first paragraph is nonsense. The requirement is to alert agreements, and Olegru clearly stated he and his partner didn't have any special agreement about the meaning of this bid. Therefore there can be no expectation it will be alerted.

You don't need to convince me about the laws, try to convince those who state: "Alert all artificial bids!" for their tourneys.

The fact that players argue they were damaged does not obligate the TD to agree with them.

If you had looked at the cards and thought about the bidding, you'd realize that if East's 3♣ promised 4♣'s and West's 4NT agreed the ♣ fit and since North is looking at 5♣'s, south has to be void and ♠A is a entry to play back to north for a 2nd ♦ ruff. So the ♣ lead is necessary, but if 3♣ is artificial north would have to lead his ♠A before one of the opps can drop his ♠'s.

[jtfanclub]

Any ideas why?

You asked for ideas, I suggest 2. Don't blame me, if you don't like them.

 

Playing without agreements is not bridge.

Subbing into tourneys is covered by the bridge laws.

 

Playing cards without dbl or psyches is not bridge.

And as I've said before, looking at pixels instead of cards isn't bridge.

People sitting at home in front of a computer isn't bridge.

 

This whole 'This isn't bridge' argument is silly (and yes, I know you didn't bring it up). Things like no psyches and no kibitzers are illegal in face-to-face bridge, but very useful for preventing cheating in on-line bridge.

 

It's not the same game.