Very poor handling by ACBL TD

[jillybean]

Tony, there was a delay in the alert of 2♦, the 2♥ call was made based on misinformation. It cant be much clearer than this.

[Old York]

From the hand as given.......

 

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...ayed=1213048800

 

It may be clear that North, perhaps, might have suffered some damage from the alledged failure to alert, BUT it is blatantly obvious that South did not.

You have NOT proved that E/W had an Alertable Partnership Agreement, only that West appeared to make an artificial bid.

 

South opened 1NT, and then went on to bid 2NT and finally 3NT AFTER he was fully aware of the true meaning of the 2D bid......why????

 

We will never know what questions were asked of whom, by the TD, and will never know what answers were given, so we cannot leap to conclusions

 

Does South have no responsibility for the final contract?

 

Tony (Duke of York)

 

added

We must also remember that the alerting of artificial bids in acbl tournaments is only a guideline, and not a Tournament Rule

[jillybean]

The auction cannot simply continue after misinformation. The 2♥ bidder is permitted to change their call (Law21 B1), their call given the correct information would proably be pass. If you leave the 2♥ bid in what is south supposed to do, let partner play in ♥ or transfer to the opps other major?

[Old York]

what is south supposed to do, let partner play in ♥ or transfer to the opps other major?

If you had taken the trouble to read the traveller, you would see 2SS=

You would also see 2HW=, 2HE= and 2HWx=

This is a stoopid hand. lol

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

The traveller has nothing to do with it. The law is clear: when MI comes to light, if it's in time (and in this case it was) a misinformed player of the NOS may change his call. If it's not in time, the TD can and should adjust the score, and that adjustment does not depend on what's on the traveller, but on the TD's assessment of what outcomes fit the requirements of Law 12C2.

 

For a TD to rail against a non-offending side because they "failed" to disregard the laws of the game makes absolutely no sense.

 

I'd like to hear the TD's side of this story.

[Old York]

It is unfortunate that the td did not explain the decision at the time, but perhaps that is understandable in a busy speedball, where one table is slow.

 

All we can do is view the matter with an open mind and trust the td to base his/her decision on the facts, as presented at the time. We will never know for sure if E/W had an "alertable partnership agreement" so, perhaps this entire thread is based on speculation?

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[glen]

In a speedball there is not enough time for the traditional bring the TD over ("DIE-WRECK-TORE PLEEZZEEEE"). have a court case, get a ruling, and proceed with the bidding. 1 or more boards are lost in a speedball with this method.

 

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board. The TD will arrive when they can, and, unlikely other bridge, still continue to play out the board when the TD arrives. The TD will collect the necessary information, and then adjust the board as appropriate. In short in a speedball, trust the TD and play to the clock.

 

I think this unwritten rule is quite sensible, and has worked out well. Thus I believe the TD actions in this case were correct for the event type.

[NickRW]

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Perhaps this rule should be written...?

 

Nick

[jillybean]

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Sorry, but this is ludicrous. A call is made based on MI, the call has to be rectified or the board adjusted. Continuing to play in a wrong or hopeless contract is silly. (edited out stronger words)

 

“call the TD and play on” could work for some calls; after the hand is complete the opps discover the other pair had a concealed agreement, opps are playing slow and we want to protect ourselves, accusations of cheating.

[glen]

Sorry, but this is ludicrous. A call is made based on MI, the call has to be rectified or the board adjusted. ...

In the speedball, nothing stops the board from being adjusted by playing on

 

For example 1NT-(2♦)-2♥, transfer to ♠s

- 2♦ bidder now delay alerts 2♦ as both majors

- call the TD, put in box "misinformation, big problem"

- say bidding continues -P-2♠-Double-3♣-Double-All Pass and you go for 1100

- the TD arrives, you say "I bid 2♥ transfer, then found out that 2♦ as both majors - I called for you"

- the TD will review the facts, and then will adjust the board to Avg+

- even better, if you make 3♣ doubled you could say "everything is cool now"

[jillybean]

If you said claim 13 tricks and move on I'd agree.

[barmar]

What's so wrong with playing on? It might be "just for fun", since you're pretty sure the board will require an adjustment. But isn't that better than "claim 13" and then stare at the screen until the round is over?

 

Maybe if this is the first board in the round you might want to get it over with quickly so you don't run into time pressure on later boards. But if it's the last board, you've got nothing to lose by playing it out, do you?

[jtfanclub]

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Perhaps this rule should be written...?

 

Nick

Well, I'm asking for it. Dunno if I'm gonna get it.

[mike777]

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.

Perhaps this rule should be written...?

 

Nick

Well, I'm asking for it. Dunno if I'm gonna get it.

On this issue I encourage you to have a polite email/pm/conversation with Jacki, ACBL online, and let us all know the results of your conversation. I have found Jacki to be extremely helpful, polite and proactive with my own TD issues even when I have disagreed with her rulings or point of view. :)

[blackshoe]

In a speedball there is not enough time for the traditional bring the TD over ("DIE-WRECK-TORE PLEEZZEEEE"). have a court case, get a ruling, and proceed with the bidding.  1 or more boards are lost in a speedball with this method.

 

Thus what speedball players find out is there is an unwritten rule: Call the TD, and then continue to play out the board.  The TD will arrive when they can, and, unlikely other bridge, still continue to play out the board when the TD arrives.  The TD will collect the necessary information, and then adjust the board as appropriate.  In short in a speedball, trust the TD and play to the clock.

 

I think this unwritten rule is quite sensible, and has worked out well.  Thus I believe the TD actions in this case were correct for the event type.

I don't mind regulations that do not conflict with the laws. I can even put up with some regulations that do conflict with the laws. I cannot stand "unwritten rules" that cause a player who does not know about them to get censured.

 

It seems completely ridiculous to play out a board when you expect that a correct ruling would allow you to change your last call, resulting in a completely different contract. Perhaps, if there is truly no time for TD rulings during the play, the regulations should stipulate that the board be abandoned, and you move on to the next board, the TD then giving artificial adjusted scores. This would be one of the those "in conflict with the laws" regulations I mentioned above. If online, and the software won't allow that, then get the software changed.

[jtfanclub]

On this issue I encourage you to have a polite email/pm/conversation with Jacki, ACBL online, and let us all know the results of your conversation. I have found Jacki to be extremely helpful, polite and proactive with my own TD issues even when I have disagreed with her rulings or point of view. :)

That's not what I'm looking for.

 

I'm looking for something officialish, written in electrons, where I can say "in this situation, I should play on, even after calling the director. In this other case, I should wait. These should be handled by ACBL, these others should be handled by Abuse".

 

This has nothing to do with Jacki, at least not directly. This is about having actual written regulations, instead of people complaining that they get censured when they follow WBF rules.

[Jacki]

Not being fond of flogging I have elected to say out of this, but a few things needs to be made clear.

 

There are no undos in ACBL games. That's the way it is. All players in a speedball have 14 minutes to play 3 boards. In the case in question, the player wanted to change his bid because of a late alert. We can't do that in our games here.

 

What we *can* do is adjust a board if we find there is damage because of a late (or no) alert or other infraction. However, we can't adjust a board until there is an outcome. What happened with the board? We can't find danage (or no damage) unless a hand is completed and we can see what happened instead of what might have happened.

 

The North player refused to bid or play - he wanted to argue. And no amount of urging from me could get him to continue.

 

Although I felt his pain, I needed the hand to finish so we could arrive at some kind of equity. And my continuing explaintions that I could (and most likely would) adjust the board when it was finished, fell on deaf ears. At the end, this situation took the entire 14 minutes and one board was barely finished. The other two boards were skipped.

 

That's the way it was and the way it is. Speedballs are fast games and need to be played fast. We can and do adjust for damage. If players want a more traditional game where there's time for philosophical debates on what's pure bridge and how the way we do it sucks, we also offer our regular pairs game. But Speedballs are fast paced and there's no time for long protracted arguing with the director. Finish first and we fix afterwards.

 

Since the player was minus 200, I reversed the board to average. He didn't like this either. And perhaps I should have given him an average plus. But I didn't.

 

OK Guys...have at it. You can find me online with the BBO name ACBL with a big round target on my back.

 

Jacki

[blackshoe]

If them's the rules Jacki, they ought to be published, clear, and available well before the start of the event. (I don't know, maybe they already are, I haven't looked).

 

If they are published, and a player doesn't look at them, that's his problem.

[Jacki]

Our help files on the current version, I agree, are out of date. Taking this into consideration, the directors state the rules for these games before every ACBL game.

 

I understand that it may be irritating to see a long list of rules roll by before each game as it starts, but we have learned that if we don't specifically say don't do something, someone will want to do it. It's a thin line we have to trod - that being, get everything clearly stated without overwhelming the players with tons of chat.

 

However, we're hard at work on the help files for the new upcomming Flash version and you can expect to see clear and extensive rules on just about everything BBO related when that rolls out. At that time, we feel we will be able to cut down on the director spam as the game starts with the hope that everyone will read the rules before playing. If they don't, we will have a easy place to send them to read the rules on anything available on BBO.

 

Jacki :)

[sceptic]

The North player refused to bid or play - he wanted to argue. And no amount of urging from me could get him to continue.

 

This is a common issue on BBO I find (well more common that I would like to see, in fact quite representative of real life)

 

some arrogant individual, insisting on their rights, despite the fact they end up inconviniencing lots of other people, why would some one want to hold up two more hands in a game called "speedball" surely the name in itself would indicate what is happening around him or her

 

another thing, if this was the first ever speed ball they had played in then I suppose you may have some sympathy for their behaviour, BUT, if they had played speedballs before and been playing bridge a long time (which I suspect is the case) then they know what the game is and it is time restricted, the same would apply to regular forum posters that frequent the bash ACBL brigade. they know how difficult it is to do a good TD job in a speedball (due entirely to time constraints) I doubt written rules would have changed this persons attitude and behaviour at the table

 

I find it a poor show that Jacki has to explain herself her, because some halfwit, decided to ruin everyones fun and then someone has the cheek to whinge about it in public, upsetting the host and various other people

 

If that person is so concerned about their score in a bridge tourny, they would be better off trying to improve thier game in general, rather than worry about the odd imp lost at a 3 minute a hand game

[blackshoe]

some arrogant individual, insisting on their rights, despite the fact they end up inconviniencing lots of other people,

Heh. Several years ago, I got on a plane at Heathrow. The passenger in the seat in front of me sat down and promptly put his seat all the way back, crushing my knees. When I asked him politely to give me a little more knee room, he said indignantly "I have a right!" I replied "I have a right, too, and a left, and you're gonna get 'em both if you don't move this seat." He moved it. :)

 

He was an American, btw, as am I. B)

[sceptic]

haha

[jillybean]

some arrogant individual, insisting on their rights, despite the fact they end up inconviniencing lots of other people,

When the opps get into the middle of my auction its inconvenient, I wish you’d make a rule against that too :D

 

The laws define the game and protect the players. Some may well regard the laws

as inconvenient and want to play under another set of rules and thats fine but personaly I'd like to play under the existing laws until such a time as the ACBL see fit to change them.

[Old York]

"Some may well regard the laws as inconvenient and want to play under another set of rules"

I have always thought that using Acbl/Wbf/Ebu rules that are designed for f2f Tournaments simply does not make sense for on-line bridge. There are many situations where these rules simply cannot be applied. It is not possible to undo a call. It is not practical to stop play and demand the immediate intervention of Td.

It is not possible to examine your oppo convention card. It is not possible to prove that oppo have an "agreement". The list is endless. Bending the rules to suit our environment is not breaking the rules. Scores can be adjusted, even after the tourney has finished.

 

Tony (Duke of York)

[blackshoe]

I have always thought that using Acbl/Wbf/Ebu rules that are designed for f2f Tournaments simply does not make sense for on-line bridge. There are many situations where these rules simply cannot be applied. It is not possible to undo a call. It is not practical to stop play and demand the immediate intervention of Td.

It is not possible to examine your oppo convention card. It is not possible to prove that oppo have an "agreement". The list is endless. Bending the rules to suit our environment is not breaking the rules. Scores can be adjusted, even after the tourney has finished.

 

Tony (Duke of York)

That it is not possible to undo a call is a fault of the software, not of the laws. Not all that difficult to correct, either, I should think.

 

Not practical to call the TD? Maybe not, but why is that? Is it because the TD is trying to handle too much? I suspect more than about 40 tables would be too much for any one person. Is there some problem with the software that makes the TD's job more difficult? Is the TD off doing something else when he should be overseeing his game?

 

If it is not possible to examine your opponent's CC, that's also a fault of the software.

 

It's not necessarily possible to prove a pair has (or does not have) an agreement in f2f bridge, either. It's also irrelevant, as the laws don't require such proof.

 

Certainly scores can be adjusted — but that should happen only as provided in the laws, not because "the software won't let me do as the laws say" or "it's too hard", or whatever.