Rulings

[waubrey]

I had two rulings in recent tournaments that I consider to be incorrect.

 

In one the opponent claimed fewer tricks than they could make. WE accepted the claim. The director adjusted the board to give the opponent an extra trick. The director said the rules say youc annot lose a trick which is "impossible" to lsoe. But there were several ways the trick could have been lost. It would have required bad play but it was possible. In my opinion this ruling was incorrect. The rule does not say that you cannot lose a trick which is impossible to lose without making a mistake.

 

In the other the opponent bid spades at one point in the bidding sequence and when asked what the bid meant typed "no s." That would lead you to believe that he had no spades. In fact he had A-4 in spades. There was damage as a result of the information given. The director said he didn't speak English well and meant that he had no spade losers and made no adjustment. Of course he did have a spade loser and I don't see why it matters whether he speaks English well, misleading information is misleading information.

 

The director in both of these situations was the same person. Am I correct to feel like we got jobbed?

[barmar]

In #1, the Law says you can't concede a trick that can't be lost through any normal line of play, where normal includes careless but not irrational. E.g. running a suit from the bottom instead of the top would usually not be normal. Without seeing the hand in question, it's hard to judge whether you got a bad ruling.

 

In #2, it doesn't matter what he has. He's only required to explain their agreements, not what he actually holds. And in an international context you also have to make allowance for the fact that that someone might not know how to explain clearly.

[waubrey]

Can you give me the number of the law on #1 so I can look it up?

 

On 2, the explanations given to us and the director were contradictory. They cannot both be what their agreement is. And both were at odds with he held.

 

As for the language, the official language in these tournaments is English. If they can't speak it well enough to give an explanation they shouldn't be playing.

[paulg]

LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED 

 

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

 

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or
    
   
2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.
   

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

 

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

As for the language, the official language in these tournaments is English. If they can't speak it well enough to give an explanation they shouldn't be playing.

I'd prefer if we were all more tolerant ... on BBO and in real life.

 

Paul

[Codo]

As for the language, the official language in these tournaments is English. If they can't speak it well enough to give an explanation they shouldn't be playing.

You can hold your personal view on this subject, but luckily the owners of this side do not share your point of view.

 

I do not share it either and I guess that you are in a small minority.

 

What do you think happens to someone who got robbed? You lose money or other pieces of value by an act of crime.

 

My opinion:

A bad ruling is no crime.

To lose 4 or 5 % in an online tournement is no piece of value.

 

So no, you did not get robbed, but I know that your feeling in this case is shared by many others.

[jdonn]

As for the language, the official language in these tournaments is English. If they can't speak it well enough to give an explanation they shouldn't be playing.

I'd prefer if we were all more tolerant ... on BBO and in real life.

I think the original poster should print out that comment, staple it to his forehead, then write it on the blackboard a thousand times until he gets it.

[waubrey]

1. I didn't ask if we got robbed. I asked if we got jobbed which is slang for being the victim of a bad call.

 

2, Since normal play includes careless play then it would seem to me that the first ruling was incorrect because a misclick could have lost the trick.

 

3. I'm plenty tolerant. I don't mind having people from other countries play in ACBL tournaments. But if they give an incorrect explanation of their agreement I think they should be penalized for it. I don't know of any sport in which an official would say "Hey, that would normally be a foul but because he couldn't help it I am not going to call it."

[jdonn]

I wonder about your definitions for two things.

 

1. Abnormal play

2. Tolerance

[mink]

I wonder about your definitions for two things.

 

1. Abnormal play

Law 71 footnote says:

 

For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be

careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

 

So e.g., with 2 cards left to play in nt, if you have an A and a K in different suits, it would be not normal to play the K first.

 

Karl

[helene_t]

I don't know why you all are bullying waubrey. It seems a reasonable position to me that if people are unable to explain their calls, they may be penalized for misinformation. Of course you have to take into account that some people have difficulties with English but giberish is giberish.

 

Anyway, as Barmar says, we would need to see the actual hand in order to judge on #1.

[jdonn]

I don't know why you all are bullying waubrey.

He wants misclicks to qualify as normal play. So in other words any play is normal play and the entire phrase is meaningless, because otherwise he would be wrong. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who just come to get confirmation they are right instead of truly learning an answer.

[helene_t]

Ah right, I didn't notice that thing about misclick. Of course a misclick shouldn't count as "normal play" for the purpose of this ruling, although for some of us it may be :)

[Lobowolf]

I had two rulings in recent tournaments that I consider to be incorrect.

 

In one the opponent claimed fewer tricks than they could make. WE accepted the claim. The director adjusted the board to give the opponent an extra trick. The director said the rules say youc annot lose a trick which is "impossible" to lsoe. But there were several ways the trick could have been lost. It would have required bad play but it was possible. In my opinion this ruling was incorrect. The rule does not say that you cannot lose a trick which is impossible to lose without making a mistake.

 

In the other the opponent bid spades at one point in the bidding sequence and when asked what the bid meant typed "no s." That would lead you to believe that he had no spades. In fact he had A-4 in spades. There was damage as a result of the information given. The director said he didn't speak English well and meant that he had no spade losers and made no adjustment. Of course he did have a spade loser and I don't see why it matters whether he speaks English well, misleading information is misleading information.

 

The director in both of these situations was the same person. Am I correct to feel like we got jobbed?

I think you got jobbed in the second case, but not in the first. I agree with pretty much everyone who's commented on first one.

 

With respect to the second one, I agree with Helene. I also agree with the people who think that you should be more tolerant, as far the comment "They shouldn't play in the tournament," but such tolerance doesn't have much to do with the ruling. It seems patently obvious to me that in a tournament that designates an official language, if your inability to communicate in that language reults in misinformation that damages the opponents, that's on you, and an adjustment is appropriate.

[hanp]

"no S" seems a misleading explanation to me. Whether it is intentional or not doesn't really matter. I would get this wrong, I would not expect my opponent to hold a doubleton spade when I was told the agreement is they hold "no S".

[pirate22]

well the use of English A the word "Jobbed" i would assume typeing error,and meant Robbed

B if i saw "no -s" i wouold assume no spades,so its a splinter?advanced double cue, non bid?

 

with due respect you must have been plying in a Turkish event/Poilish event:)

 

regards.

[Trinidad]

So someone can read "robbed" where it says "jobbed". You need to take 4 steps (or 2.5") on an American keyboard to get from the "r" to the "j". But it was assumed that "jobbed" was a typo and that "robbed" was intended. And I still find that entirely reasonable.

 

Might it be that the opponent typed "No s" while he actually meant to type "No a" (as in "no agreement")? This difference is only one step (~3/4") on the US keyboard.

 

I think only people with 200 key strokes per minute should be allowed to play on BBO. Psyches should be allowed, but misclicks and typoes should be banned!

 

:)

 

Rik

[barmar]

While I continue to believe that you have to be flexible regarding language issues, I've been won over to the side that thinks "No S" was a poor explanation despite the player's lack of fluency. The TD went too far in allowing this.

[jdonn]

At best wouldn't you need to know the auction? It is on the asker to protect himself if it's an auction where no spades is an unlikely explanation, IMO.

[waubrey]

On misclicks and normal play... I am only reasoning from the rule that was quoted to me which said that normal play INCLUDED careless play. What is a misclick if not careless? I actually think the rule is poorly stated. If normal play can include careless play then it can include anything unless the ACBL has a definition of "careless play."

 

After thinking it over, I tend to think the ruling was correct in the first instance and incorrect in the second instance.

 

Oh the auction was...

 

1C-1S-2C-P

2H-P-3S-P

3NT-P-P-P

 

I clicked on the 3S to see if that was supposed to show a spade stopper or if it was asking the opener if she had a spade stopper. no S was the reply. I took that for no spades. After talking to the player in question the TD said it meant no spade losers. Neither explanation was correct.

[Codo]

no S was just no stopper.

[helene_t]

I actually think the rule is poorly stated. If normal play can include careless play then it can include anything unless the ACBL has a definition of "careless play."

Careless play is the kind of mistakes that a player at this level would regularly make.

 

For me, failure to unblock a suit would be an example. I would get it right if it was posted as a forum problem but I frequently oops it at the table. So the director should not allow me to get an unblock right unless I state in the claim that I am going to unblock. Miscounting trumps (unless stating in the claim such as "I draw trumps in three rounds if required") would be another example.

 

OTOH, suppose I have two trumps + two clubs in hand and two trumps + two diamonds in dummy, no trumps out. I could fail to make all remaining tricks but the cross-ruff with no trumps out is such a routine play that the director should allow me to do it right.

 

Misclicks occur but clearly the director should not allow for it, since such a policy would make almost any claim invalid. Besides, if a stated line of play is correct then the claim is correct, nonwithstanding the fact that I might fail to follow my stated line due to a mechanical error.

[Lobowolf]

no S was just no stopper.

Aside from that doubleton ace, that is.

 

Misinformation, what misinformation?

[Lobowolf]

Let's see, possible explanations...

 

1) No spades

2) No spade losers

3) No stopper

 

 

NONE of which was the case. Does it really matter whether it was deliberate, the results of a misclick, or the result of limited language skills? I guess you could put it under a magnifying glass to distinguish between subsequent and consequent damage, but why does it seem like people are bending over backward to favor the side that clearly misinformed the other side?

[jdonn]

Let's see, possible explanations...

 

1)  No spades

2)  No spade losers

3)  No stopper

 

 

NONE of which was the case.  Does it really matter whether it was deliberate, the results of a misclick, or the result of limited language skills?  I guess you could put it under a magnifying glass to distinguish between subsequent and consequent damage, but why does it seem like people are bending over backward to favor the side that clearly misinformed the other side?

I don't believe it is particularly relevant since no clarification was asked for at the time (or was it?) so how could he ever claim misinformation when he essentially didn't have information at all?

 

Anyway my earlier comments about the second ruling were more tending toward the perceived attitude being displayed, not the ruling which may well have been wrong.

[Codo]

no S was just no stopper.

Aside from that doubleton ace, that is.

 

Misinformation, what misinformation?

But the explanation must not fit the hand.

Don't you frequently ask for a stopper when you have Ax yourself?

 

I do.

 

But as Josh pointesd out, this is not relevant for a case of misinformation. When I receive "no S" , I did not get an information at all.