Redeal?

[dickiegera]

At a local club we sat ready to play. There were 2 sections 9 tables and 8 and 1/2 tables. Our section had 9 tables. Our opponents the 1st round asked if they could move to other section and the director said OK. This left us with a 1st round sit-out. My partner had a dental appointment immediately after the game [she had broken off a tooth] and just came from the dentist and had made another appointment later that same day.

My partner thought that it would be nice if we could have the last sit-out instead of the 1st sit-out so she asked and we were given an OK by the pair that would have had the last sit-out and we switched places with them with the directors approval.

 

When we sat at our new 1st table there had been 1 round of bidding:

 

1NT-P-2D-P I suggested that we have a redeal and the NT bidder said NO.

I was sitting in the 2nd seat and upon looking at my hand : KJxxxx,x,KJxx,xx

said again that we should redeal the hand, again NO, then I said that I would

not have passed the hand as the first pair had done so there should be a redeal.

They told me to bid and the bidding went

 

1NT-2S-P-P-X Again I said that there should be a redeal and the director was called [ her 2nd game as the director club owner] and after asking a more experienced director came back and said that there was too much unauthorized info and there should be a redeal.

 

We redealt however 1NT opener is mad at us.

WERE WE WRONG???

 

Thank you

[blackshoe]

If there's a problem at a table, call the TD and let him sort it out.

 

The TD should not have allowed the change in seating while a board was in play.

 

The question whether to redeal a board is up to the director, not to the players.

 

I'm not sure about this "too much UI" business. What UI? Who has it?

 

It seems there was never a completed auction. :blink:

 

Why did you ask for a redeal after you got your chance to bid what you wanted to bid? For that matter, who authorized backing up the first auction? The opening bidder? Sorry, he has no authority to do lhat - and you should not have accepted it. See my first sentence above.

 

Were you wrong? Perhaps not in wishing to ask for the board to be redealt, but in just about everything else you reported here, yes, you were wrong. :ph34r:

[axman]

At a local club we sat ready to play. There were 2 sections 9 tables and 8 and 1/2 tables. Our section had 9 tables. Our opponents the 1st round asked if they could move to other section and the director said OK. This left us with a 1st round sit-out. My partner had a dental appointment immediately after the game [she had broken off a tooth] and just came from the dentist and had made another appointment later that same day.

My partner thought that it would be nice if we could have the last sit-out instead of the 1st sit-out so she asked and we were given an OK by the pair that would have had the last sit-out and we switched places with them with the directors approval.

 

When we sat at our new 1st table there had been 1 round of bidding:

 

1NT-P-2D-P I suggested that we have a redeal and the NT bidder said NO.

I was sitting in the 2nd seat and upon looking at my hand : KJxxxx,x,KJxx,xx

said again that we should redeal the hand, again NO, then I said that I would

not have passed the hand as the first pair had done so there should be a redeal.

They told me to bid and the bidding went

 

1NT-2S-P-P-X Again I said that there should be a redeal and the director was called [ her 2nd game as the director club owner] and after asking a more experienced director came back and said that there was too much unauthorized info and there should be a redeal.

 

We redealt however 1NT opener is mad at us.

WERE WE WRONG???

 

Thank you

Pr A has filled in a half table in the other section thereby creating a half table.

 

Pr B takes the chair of Pr C which has started their assigned board Q against D. Pr C taking the old place of Pr B and sitting out.

 

B should be advised there will be consequences [since he wanted this change in movement] should any adjusted scores need to be awarded.

 

Once this has happened, by this reassignment board Q becomes a board played/started by the incorrect contestant [but not C or D’s fault]. The provisions of L15C apply to B&D and later to C&??.

 

So, the auction is restarted and because B does not reproduce the auction and are at fault, an artificial score is awarded based on D not being at fault and B at fault. Because the board has already been played in the other section it must not be redealt.

 

Further, when C meets the board Q later [L15C], if the auction is not reproduced then an artificial score must be awarded with no side at fault. And, a PP assessed B for causing the loss of a comparison.

 

To recap, B,C,& D are less than happy. And because of the unnecessary loss of two?? comparisons the field is likely to not be pleased. Moral, once a good movement is set it is unwise to muck with it unnecessarily.

 

As a note, the law is less than clear as to when there are occasions [such as this] that it is compatible [L6D3] for the TD to order a new deal.

[dickiegera]

The boards were NOT duplicated in the 2 sections. Each section had their own boards which were shuffled and dealt and placed in their respective pockets by the 4 people at each table just prior to the start of the session.

[bluejak]

If you ask people to do a favour for you it is then unreasonable to ask for further favours. To ask for a redeal was unreasonable in my view, and to tell people why is giving UI unnecessarily.

[axman]

The boards were NOT duplicated in the 2 sections. Each section had their own boards which were shuffled and dealt and placed in their respective pockets by the 4 people at each table just prior to the start of the session.

You have two 2-winner events.

 

Once the td chooses to accomodate the movement changes he needs to instruct that the interrupted board be shuffled prior [there being no interaction between sections there is good reason to avoid losing comparisons] to proceeding.

[barmar]

I think the director could have allowed the pair that had already started the auction to finish that board, and you would then take their place starting with the following board. You end up with one more sit-out board than you were supposed to (and they with one fewer), but there wouldn't have been any other problems. Changing pairs in the middle of a hand is almost never appropriate.

[bluejak]

Unless the OP has not told us something that has happened, I think you have missed the point: the TD was not involved in this switch of players. The players did something totally illegal, without the TD being involved, and then wanted to make up another rule without the TD being involved. All the players are lucky I was not the TD when the TD found out what the players had been up to.

 

The simple answer to the questions set by the OP are:

• Changing tables after an auction has started is totally illegal and should not happen without telling the TD.
  
• Demanding a redeal without the TD being present is completely illegal and unacceptable.
  
• Demanding a redeal when others have done you a favour is unacceptable.
  

:)

 

Now, if the TD had been involved, he had the following options.

• Not allowing the switch at all.
  
• Allowing the switch after the board had been finished: the pair that switched gets Ave-.
  

[blackshoe]

"we switched places with them with the directors approval."

 

So at least that much the TD knew about and approved. The insistence on redeals is another thing.

[bluejak]

Ok, I missed that. But now it gets murky. What did the TD say, do, and how did this all come about? I thought they had just done it.

 

Perhaps the TD just assumed that the board had not been started - or at least that they would have told him if so.

 

I suppose I just find the whole story so incredible I have difficulty working out exactly what happened. :)

[JoAnneM]

It wasn't mentioned - were the same hands being played in both sections? Anyway, once bidding starts, as a director, no one changes tables for any reason, but that doesn't answer the question.

 

If the same hands were not being played in both sections and the director allowed the move then I think the hand should have been redealt, automatically upon his instruction.

 

And this is why you call the director and don't argue with opponents.

[Vampyr]

You have two 2-winner events.

One would think so. But if you have never played in the ACBL you will be surprised to learn that there may be two winners (NS/EW or S1/S2 -- it scarcely matters!) or even one. Even at tournaments there can be an overall winner drawn from two directions with no intermingling of lines!

 

I imagine that most people would find this appalling, but in North America they don't seem to mind.

[Sadie3]

Maybe this is a little off topic, but why did the first pair (that started this chain reaction) want to move to the other section in the first place? I think your new club director was being unnecessarily put upon and the players were out of line for suggesting any of the changes once the game had started. I think that asking for the last sitout or a N/S seat or a specific section is something a player should make known to the director upon arrival at a game and only common courtesy. I do understand that there are personalities that sometimes clash and realizing that you are headed for your worst nightmare in 2-3 rounds can make you want to ask for special consideration. I also know that most directors quickly develop a good insight into their players skills and personalities and take that into consideration when assigning table and seat assignments.

 

Since this was a two section non duplicated board movement, it should have been clear that the one started hand should have been redealt immediately IMO, but as in all these kinds of situations, calling the director for assistance right away would have resolved the issue without consuming more of the round clock time and without creating friction at the table. My sympathies go to the nervous almost brand new club director who was trying to please everyone and ended with more than one pair being upset.

[dickiegera]

This was only the 2nd time the lady/director/owner had run a game. The previous owner had let people sign up on sign up sheets way in advance. The new owner has not yet changed this policy.

 

I could go to the game tomorrow and sign up for TABLE 14 EW Jan 5th 2010 if I so desired. Problems occur when people fail to show, and when only enough people show so that there is just 1 section. The director must move people each day because someone doesn't show. On some days the game is started before director realizes that there are 2 half tables. Very poor I know but it is the only game in town. Hopefully new director will fix this sooner than later.

THANKS AGAIN

[shintaro]

This was only the 2nd time the lady/director/owner had run a game. The previous owner had let people sign up on sign up sheets way in advance. The new owner has not yet changed this policy.

 

I could go to the game tomorrow and sign up for TABLE 14 EW Jan 5th 2010 if I so desired. Problems occur when people fail to show, and when only enough people show so that there is just 1 section. The director must move people each day because someone doesn't show. On some days the game is started before director realizes that there are 2 half tables. Very poor I know but it is the only game in town. Hopefully new director will fix this sooner than later.

THANKS AGAIN

:D

 

A simple answer could be make them sign up for a table position that is next in order and NOT miss tables ;)

[mycroft]

But I might have to sit E-W that way. And I sign up weeks in advance to get my N-S!

 

(seriously, I have people come in an hour early to not have to move. Not *can't*; just too lazy.)

 

[edit: never mind the people who have their own table, so book 10 N-S throughout. And when there are only 9 tables get both sides of the "don't wanna" stick - need to play E-W *and* don't get their second home]

[shintaro]

But I might have to sit E-W that way. And I sign up weeks in advance to get my N-S!

 

(seriously, I have people come in an hour early to not have to move. Not *can't*; just too lazy.)

 

[edit: never mind the people who have their own table, so book 10 N-S throughout. And when there are only 9 tables get both sides of the "don't wanna" stick - need to play E-W *and* don't get their second home]

;)

 

I think the Answer to this syndrome is TOUGH come early to get sitting positions or risk having to move

 

;)

[mjj29]

I think the Answer to this syndrome is TOUGH come early to get sitting positions or risk having to move

Or make them play howells so you can't guarantee which seats are stationary until after everyone is seated and the movement cards are handed out.

[pran]

I think the Answer to this syndrome is TOUGH come early to get sitting positions or risk having to move

Or make them play howells so you can't guarantee which seats are stationary until after everyone is seated and the movement cards are handed out.

Well, all standard Howell movements I know about have only one stationary pair: The one sitting N-S at table 1.

 

The exception is of course what we in Norway call "Howell with tail(s)" (I don't know the English term) where you have more than one stationary pair in order to reduce the required number of rounds and boards to be played.

 

As I have noticed pointed out many times this is not a particularly good idea because it isn't difficult for the Director to select which pair he wants as a winner of the session by carefully choosing the stationary pairs and where they are to be seated.

 

In fact if (for whatever reason) more than one pair must be stationary in a Howell movement it is very important that all stationary pairs consist of medium-level players.

 

(A similar effect is possible, but more difficult to arrange for arrow-switching Mitchell with one rather than two winners.)

 

Regards Sven

[bluejak]

May I remind people the players are the customers? The aim is not to make life as difficult as possible for them. Players who like N/S seats in clubs should have some method of allowing for them without it becoming too extreme. It sounds as though it may be too extreme in the club mentioned in this thread.

 

Sven: we call them "Three-quarter Howells", not a very sensible term.

[mycroft]

The problem is that the game gets very badly seeded, and even with arrow-switching (which we don't do), there is still going to be a bias when there are 9 good pairs from 13 N/S, but only 2 E/W. And trying to move them to properly seed the field is a nightmare, the few times the ACBL says I have to.

[blackshoe]

Sven: we call them "Three-quarter Howells", not a very sensible term.

 

Yes. I prefer the term used by Hallen, et. al.: Reduced Howell.

 

Mycroft: re: seeding, what I've seen done around here is that the TD places a note on certain tables: "A players only at this table" or some such. Perhaps you would need "no A players at this table" on other tables. You'd probably get complaints at first, but I expect they'd get used to it sooner or later.

[Vampyr]

Players who like N/S seats in clubs should have some method of allowing for them without it becoming too extreme.  It sounds as though it may be too extreme in the club mentioned in this thread.

It does seem pretty extreme. A sensible method would be to allow seating requests no earlier than an hour or two before the game, either by phoning or by arriving early.

 

(Mycroft)

 

The problem is that the game gets very badly seeded, and even with arrow-switching (which we don't do), there is still going to be a bias when there are 9 good pairs from 13 N/S, but only 2 E/W. And trying to move them to properly seed the field is a nightmare, the few times the ACBL says I have to.

 

Why not arrow-switch? It would help a bit. In England two-winner movements are very unpopular (they are not even used in cross-IMPed pairs, which I think is crazy). You might find that players where you are would like one-winner movements once they started playing them.

[shintaro]

Why not arrow-switch? It would help a bit. In England two-winner movements are very unpopular (they are not even used in cross-IMPed pairs, which I think is crazy). You might find that players where you are would like one-winner movements once they started playing them.

;)

 

Is this in England USA ???

 

The vast majority of clubs I frequent (in England UK) use 2 winner events unless the number of tables is low then they resort to a Howell purely due to lack of numbers

 

:lol:

[RMB1]

My experience from various parts of South England is that one-winner movements are the norm. Two winners usually only occur by accident when they forget to arrow-switch.

 

Robin