duty/ettiquette

[babalu1997]

I was playing in a free bbo tournament.

 

Opp interferes over my partner`s no trump, and since we play lebensohl, i inquired what the bid meant.

 

The opp says-- no informations available, i asked for an explanation and answer changes to- see CC

 

I click about, using the web version, and cannot find a cc, either the regular one or fdcc, opps profile say nothing. I told them to please explain, that i could not access cc.

 

i call the director, and the diatribe continues about how **their cc has everything explained on it**

 

the melee does not end until ine opps gets abusive giving the the td the opportunity to remove him from the table.

 

now if in fact, a cc is illegible to the opponent, as was the case here, should the opp not be required to explain-- it was a simple thing -- the nature of interference over 1nt -- all they had to say was long suit or 2 suits, etc...

[blackshoe]

Of course they're required to disclose their methods. A system card is just one way of doing that, and if they don't have one, or it can't be read, then they need to explain what's going on in some other way.

 

OTOH, it was a free tournament. You get what you pay for. :)

[helene_t]

They must always answer your question. You don't have to explain them that you can't read their CC, since even if you could they still have to explain.

 

Besides, the initial answer (no information) was wrong as they appear to have an agreement.

[matmat]

it's possibly that by CC they meant the profile.

[barmar]

Were the opponents a pick-up partnership?

 

If so, what may have happened is that one player posted a CC, and the other didn't have time to read it completely before the tourney, particularly missing their defense to 1NT. When he made his bid, he guessed what system they're playing, because he didn't want to consult the CC during the auction (that would clearly be unethical, although hardly uncommon of in online bridge). And since he wasn't sure what their agreement was, he couldn't answer the question, either.

 

However, it should have been possible to get an answer from the other opponent, the one who posted the CC.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's all hypothetical, Barmar, but if that's what happened, the "guesser" could certainly have said "I'm not sure what our agreement is, or even that we have one: we're using partner's system card, but I didn't bother to (or didn't have time to) read it". This player would be correct in asserting that he doesn't have to tell opponents which way he guessed (absent prior experience with this partner) but he apparently didn't do that, either.

[Vampyr]

Were the opponents a pick-up partnership?

 

....

 

When he made his bid, he guessed what system they're playing, because he didn't want to consult the CC during the auction (that would clearly be unethical, although hardly uncommon of in online bridge). And since he wasn't sure what their agreement was, he couldn't answer the question, either.

I am not sure it is unethical for pick-up partnerships to check their convention card during the auction. And since it is completely unenforcable, it is effectively not illegal either. I think that issues like this argue for the appropriateness of a third set of bridge laws.

[jdonn]

Oh my gosh, there was a communication problem between random opponents on BBO, I can't believe it! ;)