98.611% no complaints

[McBruce]

Thoughts from a solo TD who survived a 36-table indy...

 

Can You Believe This?, Number 1

 

I'm called to the table, the South player has a weak flat hand and the E-W pair have bid to a slam: 2NT 3♦; 3♥ 4NT; 5♥ 5NT; 6♥ P, starting with East's 2NT call. East's 5♥ response to Blackwood has an attached explanation which is "20-21." The South player has a problem with this for reasons that his rather mediocre cards do not make clear. I explain in private chat that clearly the person thought they were asked about the 2NT opener. Not good enough. I explain in private chat that 5♥ must be two aces. Still no action by South. I say in public chat "you MUST make a call now. You cannot delay on a technicality like this." An opponent explains that the question about 5♥ came after 6♥ was bid a round later. Player finally passes and makes an opening lead. I leave, attend to another call, and three minutes later return to ensure that nothing further has developed. South is now arguing that he was right to call the TD. Three tricks have been played. I get a private message "see what I mean?" I respond (privately): "what I see is that you are delaying for no apparent reason. We all play SAYC here, there is no reason to ask about the 5♥ call."

 

This got an anguished reaction that South was a "fair person" and the opps "made it wrong" and that I was wrong to point out in public that he was delaying. (In an unclocked tournament he could delay for a hour and the slam would still be scored against him.) When he asked to be replaced I suggested that he read the rules of tournaments before signing up in future before letting him go.

 

 

Can You Believe This?, Number 2

 

During a flurry of TD calls including this one, the slow group went from one board behind pace (OK) to three boards behind pace (not OK). I thus spent the next half-hour watching closely for hopeless connections. Just because it is unclocked does not mean you get to play as slow as you like, especially when others are waiting for you. I replaced one player who took over 15 seconds to play singletons or pass Yarboroughs. I claimed by adjustment to get rounds over with quickly. I asked players to make an effort to catch up. Finally I got a handle on the situation and replaced a second player who averaged over 35 seconds per decision (most of them obvious) as I watched, after a warning changed nothing. A few minutes after the replacement was in place, I got this from the player, now in the lobby:

 

"I have C Palsy in my hands"

 

My response: "I'm sorry, but we need to enforce the pace for the other players."

 

"have you heard of the ADA- AAMERICANS WITH DIS ABILITIES ACT?"

 

I did not respond to this. Perhaps Uday or Fred can tell me if I can be sued. Let's get serious here: if you have a disability that prevents you from playing moderately fast, why on earth would you sign up for a 7 minutes per board tourney? And when in fact you hold up three tables by singlehandedly causing those unfortunates to sit for 9 or 10 minutes per round for the first nine boards, what sort of person threatens the TD for taking action consistent with his posted rules?

 

 

All a harried TD can do is focus on the 98.611% (142 of 144, perhaps with about 20 subs it should be slightly higher) who understand that they are not the only ones who matter, and several of whom thanked me nicely at the end.

[xx1943]

Thoughts from a solo TD who survived a 36-table indy...

Hi Bruce

Right you are. :huh:

I made similar experiences in ** Very Quick and Nice **

Behaviour improved drastic, when I began to blacklist just a few complainers. :ph34r: :P :ph34r:

Al :P

[vang]

imho, you should permanently add the player from case #1 to your blacklist.

[TimG]

I'm called to the table, the South player has a weak flat hand and the E-W pair have bid to a slam: 2NT 3♦; 3♥ 4NT; 5♥ 5NT; 6♥ P, starting with East's 2NT call. East's 5♥ response to Blackwood has an attached explanation which is "20-21." The South player has a problem with this for reasons that his rather mediocre cards do not make clear. I explain in private chat that clearly the person thought they were asked about the 2NT opener. Not good enough. I explain in private chat that 5♥ must be two aces.

Not to excuse anyone's actions, but it's not clear to me that 4NT is Blackwood and 5H is showing two aces. It is common to play that a transfer followed by 4NT is quantitative, especially when there is an alternate way to ask for aces (in this case, Gerber). The first three internet sites I found with SAYC summaries did not mention whether Gerber applies after a transfer.

[inquiry]

I agree with Tim.. I think 5♥ here is to play... since 4NT is invite, and 5♥ is signoff.. After the 4NT bidder over rules his parnter and bids 6♥ I might want to think a bit too... And asking about the meaning of 5♥ would certainly occur to me. For one thing, if I am going to defend and it did show two aces rather than minimum with heart fit, I would like to know which while playing later.

 

As a director, I am not sure you are even allowed to make a statement like "there is no reason to ask about the 5♥ call". To begin with, they have a right to ask about any call they like (with possible UI implications, especially if trivial). Second, there is clearly alternative ways to play this bid, and he has the right to know what the 6♥ bidder can expect from the 2NT opener.

 

I happen to totally agree with South that you were wrong to point out in public that he was delaying without reason. Declearer can now make assumptions about South's hand based upon your comments. This is not meant to absolve south, sounds like he was delaying issues unnecessarily, but he has a right to an explaination of the bidding before he plays (after the 6♥ bid). It was the 6♥ bid that caused him to change his view of what 5♥ meants, hence the question.

 

As far as case II. I think you are safe.

 

ben

[paulhar]

I certainly hope 4NT is quantitative here, because if it isn't, my wife is going to have to rewrite the entire chapter she's working on now! :rolleyes:

[mpefritz]

I am not convinced 4NT is asking for Aces, nor am I convinced it is quantitative. It depends on partnership agreement on continuations after a 2NT opening and a transfer.

 

Depending on my partner, 4C could have one of several meanings after the transfer -- which then change the meaning of 4NT.

 

However, this was a "SAYC-only" tournament. I cannot find anything saying what 4NT and 4C mean after a transfer.

 

Directly over 2NT, 4C is gerber and 4NT is quantitative, but when there is no space for a jump in clubs, the meaning becomes fuzzy -- and is not spelled out anywhere I can find for SAYC.

 

Nonetheless, the inquirer wanted to know something, McBruce essentially told the player that it meant 2 aces (which was correct as the 2NT bidder did have a max and didn't interpret it as quant). The asker could have made a case later to describe how the info would have changed things here -- it didn't. I suspect the hand in question is the hand I posted under interesting hands.

 

fritz

[luis]

Horrible ruling,

 

4NT is usually cunatitative and 5h denies slam interes so it would be "to play"

south has the right to ask with 0 or 12 read the rules.

With all my respect TDs that are not experts should ask expert players before deciding what an auction means or saying "obvious".

[McBruce]

Let's be clear here.

 

It was completely obvious to anyone with a brain that "20-21" was an explanation of 2NT, not of 5♥. The East player confirmed this later. Verbatim, my first private message to South (paraphrased above) was "I think you can assume he was describing the 2NT opener, 5H should be a BW response, 2 aces."

 

If South wanted an explanation of 5♥, he had any number of ways in which to get one. He could have asked either or both opponents in private what 5♥ meant. He could have asked me to find out.

 

Instead, he chose to make a fuss. He refused to bid until some 'ruling' had been made where none was required.

 

He was 4-3-3-3 with the J♠ and the Q♣. He was not trying to gain information to help him defend. He was trying to get the opponents slapped with a penalty. At that point I said "you cannot delay on a technicality like this," the only public comment I made critical of his actions. Even when I returned to find him still arguing, I made the comments at that point in private.

 

Reviewing my chat log, I find that the same player has played in and been told by me before that my tournaments are SAYC-only; even stated in the past that he 'understands now.' I go to great lengths to make this known to everyone. At this point it appears some people are deliberately forgetting the well-advertised rules when it suits them to do so. Do I actually need to make an announcement that such behavior will not be tolerated, or is it just common sense? Are you kidding me?

[McBruce]

(luis in red)

 

 

Horrible ruling,

To which ruling are you referring? I didn't make a ruling here. I advised South that he could assume 5♥ showed two aces. I told the South player to continue playing. I returned to find him arguing with the opponents further and when he asked me I told him privately what I thought. I didn't even replace him as a Law 91B ruling, he ASKED me to replace him.

 

I think before you call a ruling horrible you ought to find out whether a ruling has in fact been made.

 

4NT is usually cunatitative and 5h denies slam interes so it would be "to play"

If you define 4NT as usually quantitative it logically follows that 5H must usually (not always) be to play. It is undefined in SAYC.

 

south has the right to ask with 0 or 12 read the rules.

Nobody is disputing that South has the right to ask. But if you ask and you get an explanation which clearly relates to a different bid, you ASK AGAIN, you don't need to call the TD. If you call the TD anyway and he explains that 20-21 was an explanation of 2NT, and you really want an explanation of 5♥, once again you can still ASK AGAIN. South chose not to do so.

 

With all my respect TDs that are not experts should ask expert players before deciding what an auction means or saying "obvious".

You're kidding, right? If you would like to round up some experts to be on standby while I direct, I'll be happy to consult them. Well, maybe happy isn't the right word here, since the tournament will take an hour or so more as I consult.

 

I missed the quantitative possibility of 5♥, I grant you that. But it is irrelevant here: South, in arguing with me later, claimed that the problem was whether 5♥ was straight BW or RKC. RKC is not part of SAYC. And as noted in the previous post, my chat log reveals that this South had in a previous tournament been reminded of the SAYC-only nature of the event.

[the hog]

1). The player in question has every right to know what the bid and auction means. As has already been pointed out, 4N should be quantitative here, so the auction does not really make sense.

 

2). "was 4-3-3-3 with the J♠ and the Q♣. He was not trying to gain information to help him defend."

How can you draw this conclusion? Did he make a statement to that effect? "He was trying to get the opponents slapped with a penalty". Did he ask for a penalty? If not you are drawing a very long bow. The shape and the cards held by the player in question need to have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his question. - see 1) above.

The comment you made re the player's having no reason to ask is an inapproriate comment for a td to make.

 

3) "If you define 4NT as usually quantitative it logically follows that 5H must usually (not always) be to play. It is undefined in SAYC."

It is not undefined in Bridge.

 

4). But if you ask and you get an explanation which clearly relates to a different bid, you ASK AGAIN, you don't need to call the TD. If you call the TD anyway and he explains that 20-21 was an explanation of 2NT, and you really want an explanation of 5♥, once again you can still ASK AGAIN. South chose not to do so.

 

Fair comment. It is possible he was getting frustrated however.

 

5). RKC is not part of SAYC. Huh? RKCB is a variation of normal Blackwood. To say "it is not part of SAYC" is just silly.

No doubt now you will point to paragraph 5 subsection 32 of some document somewhere, but for heavens sake, RKCB is not a system; its just a variation that a heck of a lot of people, (most?), play these days.

 

Perhaps this person has complained before, but it appears there was fault on all sides here.

 

Re. Your second incident - I have sympathy for you here. These situations are always difficult. Perhaps it shows we should not jump to conclusions.

[EdmundB]

As a player, I despise unclocked events. Usually I'm fast enough that I end up playing in the "early-bird" group, playing with and against the same players over and over and over and ...

 

But the other day, my partner and I got caught up with a slow pair right off the bat, and we could never get out of the "molasses" group.

 

Please Don't Hold Unclocked Events.

 

Thank you.

 

And it was really rude of the player to enter the event, knowing that he's mess things up for everyone else. The sad thing is that in this day and age you can't discount the idea that he has a case.

[xx1943]

Please  Don't  Hold  Unclocked  Events.

Hi Edmund

 

There are many people who like McBruce's event just in the manner he designed it.

There are many European player, who get up at 04:15 am to participate in the Alphabet-Points-Tournament.

 

Nobody forces you to play in this event or another which rules you dislike. :ph34r:

 

 

 

Sincerly

 

Al

[pclayton]

  A few minutes after the replacement was in place, I got this from the player, now in the lobby:

 

"I have C Palsy in my hands"

 

My response: "I'm sorry, but we need to enforce the pace for the other players."

 

"have you heard of the ADA- AAMERICANS WITH DIS ABILITIES ACT?"

 

I did not respond to this.  Perhaps Uday or Fred can tell me if I can be sued.  Let's get serious here: if you have a disability that prevents you from playing moderately fast, why on earth would you sign up for a 7 minutes per board tourney? 

Bruce - this is a VERY serious issue. Without going into too much detail, I think Fred should investigate this.

[vang]

I'm called to the table, the South player has a weak flat hand and the E-W pair have bid to a slam: 2NT 3♦; 3♥ 4NT; 5♥ 5NT; 6♥ P, starting with East's 2NT call.  East's 5♥ response to Blackwood has an attached explanation which is "20-21."  The South player has a problem with this for reasons that his rather mediocre cards do not make clear.  I explain in private chat that clearly the person thought they were asked about the 2NT opener.  Not good enough.  I explain in private chat that 5♥ must be two aces.

Not to excuse anyone's actions, but it's not clear to me that 4NT is Blackwood and 5H is showing two aces.

if i understood well, it was an _individual_. so, if it's unclear to you, there are big chances to be unclear to them too. imho, this distinction between BW and quantative is too much to be expected in an individual tourney (except maybe direct seq like 1/2NT-4NT).

[McBruce]

From the announcements that I make at the start of every Alphabet Points tournament:

This is a Standard American Yellow Card-ONLY individual tournament. You may NOT agree to play a different system. (By SAYC I mean the Standard American Yellow Card system as published by the ACBL, and NOT 'Standard American.')

 

NONE of the following are part of SAYC: "udca" signals, Roman Keycard or Exclusion Blackwood, Forcing Notrump, New Minor Forcing, Checkback Stayman, Gambling 3NT, Splinters, Support Doubles, Bergen Raises, Inverted Minors, Lebensohl, all Artificial Defenses to 1NT. Use any of these here and your score is liable to be adjusted.

 

You may think this is not bridge, and we'll have to agree to disagree (elsewhere please). I post this in the tourney description, on my website, in the tourney conditions, and in announcements at the start of the game. There really is no excuse for anyone to claim that they didn't know.

 

The SAYC book says that Gerber is on only directly over bids or rebids of 1NT or 2NT, so you cannot transfer then bid 4♣ to ask for aces. Therefore 4NT was Blackwood. The idea that Gerber and quantitative 4NT can be used after a transfer is actually quite advanced, by SAYC's meager standards, as you can see from the common standard adjuncts that SAYC omits.

 

The South player was NOT entitled to what East thought 5♥ meant. He was only entitled to the agreements they had, which by the tournament rules are limited to SAYC-only. Once I told him that 5♥ had to show two aces, he had no reason to ask further. If East had held one ace and the K♥ I would adjust to A+- if the slam made: West would have fielded East's non-SAYC call by bidding on to 6♥ in that case.

 

If South wanted an explanation of the 5♥ call, he certainly did not communicate this to me very well:

 

South: hi. sorry disturb you but i asked the 5!h bid

South: and the answer was points????

McB->South: I think you can assume he was describing the 2NT opener, 5H should be a BW response, 2 aces

(some time passes, maybe 30 seconds)

McBruce: please continue

McBruce: the explanation of 5H is actually an explanataion of 2NT

South: yes of course!! but NEVER have to tell points

West: your bid South

(more time passes)

McBruce: South, you MUST lead now

McBruce: or bid

McBruce: you cannot delay on a technicality like this

South: yes

South: but 5!h

South: just have to say RKCB etc

South: not points

 

I made a judgment based on this conversation that the South player was not trying to find out what 5♥ meant, but rather claiming some obscure foul. That's what TDs do, and if I was unduly harsh to South, I would have apologized later. But the combination of calling the TD for no apparent reason, delaying further when I ask that play continue, and arguing the matter further after I have left, is always going to raise my hackles, and I suspect there are few TDs who wouldn't be frustrated at this.

[the hog]

So, looking at the chat log I can conclude, at NO stage did the player request a ruling or an adjustment, despite your intimations to the contrary, nor did he claim a foul.

 

'The South player was NOT entitled to what East thought 5♥ meant. He was only entitled to the agreements they had, "

 

Pardon?? Are you serious?

 

"Once I told him that 5♥ had to show two aces" - you have already been told by a number of good players that it doesn't have to..

[xx1943]

but rather claiming some obscure foul. 

That's what TDs do, and if I was unduly harsh to South, I would have apologized later.  But the combination of calling the TD for no apparent reason, delaying further when I ask that play continue, and arguing the matter further after I have left, is always going to raise my hackles, and I suspect there are few TDs who wouldn't be frustrated at this.

rite !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

 

And all who do not agree :angry: with this policy are invited to direct tournaments themselves with the rules they like.

 

Anybody who is complaining about TDs should have the experience how to cope with perverse and rude players (Only 1,389% as McBruce calculated :ph34r: ).

But these few people may spoil up the whole tourney for all other nice people, who like to play bridge with fun.

 

Cheers

 

Al

[the hog]

"Anybody who is complaining about TDs should have the experience how to cope with perverse and rude players (Only 1,389% as McBruce calculated "

 

A nonsense post! Where in the log file is there evidence that the player was rude or perverse? There isn't!

 

As for this comment - "That's what TDs do". Well, not the ones that I have high regard for.

[mpefritz]

Hmm....

 

Actually reading the chat log and explanation, MAYBE the 2NT opener thought 2NT showed 20-22 and 5♥ DID show 20-21 (and not 22), because he interpreted 4NT to be quantitative. Perhaps to clarify all future issues, McBruce should find the 2NT opener and ask him what he thinks the range is for 2NT.

 

The SOUTH player obviously thought 4NT was some form of Ace asking, and McBruce explained that it meant 2 aces. Explanations for what bids mean should not be needed in this tournament since all players are told to play SAYC over and over and over and over and over. Here, though, the SAYC meaning of 4NT is not well defined. Anyway, no RCKB in this tournament.

 

For the record, on this hand (I was not at this table), a fairly good player was my partner. Here's the chat record before his (incorrect) response to my Jacoby 2NT call:

 

mpefritz: hi all, gl alphapts CC posted

(PARD): Hi, Fritz and everyone else.

(PARD): No CC needed. We all are supposed to play the same thing!

mpefritz: i posted McBruces' approved cc

 

At every table I use the same greeting.

 

Anyway, I think McBruce is frustrated by players who are delaying the action for the other players in order to get information they should "know". Here South is not entitiled to what East or West think 4NT or 5H mean, but is responsible in signing up for THIS tournament for "knowing" what the bids mean in SAYC -- which is, perhaps, undefined :ph34r: South DID apparently get an answer to what the 2NT opener thought 5H meant, and McBruce augmented it with the fact that the 2NT bidder had 2 aces.

 

fritz

 

p.s. On this hand the responder to 2NT was a passed hand (Axx-QJTxx-T9x-Ax)

[cherdano]

To everyone who thought that South is entitled to get an explanation of 5♥: That is right, but the correct answer would have been "undiscussed", so he actually got a lot more information from Bruce than he was entitled to. Even if he disagrees with the TD, there is no reason to delay the play endlessly.

 

Btw, McBruce's tourney is the only individual I enjoyed playing lately. His policy to enforce SAYC makes it a good chance that you can have simple and natural but good bidding sequences with a complete stranger. And I also like his decision to play unclocked and try to punish slow players -- which is a lot more work for him, but has the advantage that noone can play to run the clock down to avoid a certain 0%-score.

[paulhar]

The SAYC book says that Gerber is on only directly over bids or rebids of 1NT or 2NT, so you cannot transfer then bid 4♣ to ask for aces. Therefore 4NT was Blackwood.

1. Where is this SAYC book that you use for your rules? An online link would be helpful :) When I looked up SAYC, I didn't find these.

 

2. Your conclusion is not logical. If somebody only needs to know about Aces, they don't bother to transfer, they just bid Gerber (under your rules) and place the contract. No advantage to setting the suit first since RKCB is taboo. If your hand is shapely enough that all you care about is aces, then having the responder's hand distribution hidden is probably as valuable as having the lead come up to the NT bidder. If somebody wants to bid quantitatively, it MIGHT be useful for partner to know about the 5-card major to help him decide whether to go or not. So, the quantitative 4NT makes much more sense after the transfer.

 

The idea that Gerber and quantitative 4NT can be used after a transfer is actually quite advanced, by SAYC's meager standards, as you can see from the common standard adjuncts that SAYC omits.

 

BBO has some pretty decent players - I have found most intermediates on BBO to be much stronger than our 'intermediate' students (or anybody else's!) I'd bet that most of them that know that 1NT-4NT is quantative can extend the principle to all notrump auctions.

 

That being said, I don't think Bruce handled the situation unreasonably as many of the posters seem to think. He had to make a quick decision how to get this player to bid. Maybe if he had a long time to think about it, he would have done something differeent. But he didn't have that time, and in the little time he did have, he probably were being hassled with other calls. The player needed to bid, and if wasn't going to bid unless he got the information, Bruce gave him the information. Perhaps he shouldn't have done that, but I'm sure the player would have been more annoyed at getting an average minus for holding up play - which a lot of TD's would have given.

[1eyedjack]

Heh, perhaps TD needs to take a leaf out of Robocop II:

 

"Advise opponent what is meant by 5H. You have 15 seconds to comply. You have 10 seconds to comply. You have 5 seconds to comply. BAM!"

[inquiry]

The SAYC book says that Gerber is on only directly over bids or rebids of 1NT or 2NT, so you cannot transfer then bid 4♣ to ask for aces.  Therefore 4NT was Blackwood.

1. Where is this SAYC book that you use for your rules? An online link would be helpful :) When I looked up SAYC, I didn't find these.

For the ACBL booklet on SAYC see this...

 

CLiCK here for link to ACBL booklet

[paulhar]

The SAYC book says that Gerber is on only directly over bids or rebids of 1NT or 2NT, so you cannot transfer then bid 4♣ to ask for aces.  Therefore 4NT was Blackwood.

1. Where is this SAYC book that you use for your rules? An online link would be helpful :angry: When I looked up SAYC, I didn't find these.

For the ACBL booklet on SAYC see this...

 

CLiCK here for link to ACBL booklet

Thank you for the link. I've read the pertinent section. What it says is:

 

(from ACBL SAYC manual)

4C = asking for aces.  4C is Gerber over any 1NT or 2NT by partner including a 1NT or 2NT rebid.

 

I don't see the word ONLY in that statement.

 

If the SAYC manual had stated 'A one level response shows four cards after the opening bid', would you interpret 1C P 1D P 1H P 1S as not showing four spades because the spade bid didn't come directly over the opening bid?

 

Even if you don't buy this logical extension, there's another flaw in your argument. The SAYC manual also states, "Jump overcalls are preemptive." Since I don't find anything else about the issue, I would assume that your interpretation of the auction RHO: 3D You: 4H would be preemptive! We all know that this is not true. So you can't take anything in there literally. Bridge common sense has to override the literal content of the book.