Hand from a tourney tonight

[mr1303]

From a tournament tonight.

 

Bidding proceeds 1NT (P) 2C (7NT)

 

At which point the 7NT bidder leaves after hurling some abuse at the table.

 

Director is called. What should happen now?

[jillybean]

From a tournament tonight.

 

Bidding proceeds 1NT (P) 2C (7NT)

 

At which point the 7NT bidder leaves after hurling some abuse at the table.

 

Director is called. What should happen now?

 

I don't know if the laws cater for this type of thing but this is what I would do.

Adjust the board A+ for the non offenders, A= for the other player + sub, add the 7N bidder to my ban list and carry on.

Some would say you should also send a screen shot to abuse.

[Vampyr]

Issues like people leaving the table are a reason that online "bridge" needs its own set of laws.

[Bbradley62]

Some would say you should also send a screen shot to abuse.

Certainly, either a player or the director should report this to abuse. No matter how hopeless his partner was...

[barmar]

Except by inference from experience, how do we know this is online?

[Vampyr]

Except by inference from experience, how do we know this is online?

 

In normal bridge it is unusual to leave the table, and there might have been some discussion about whether the player left the premises, whether someone tried to get him to come back, etc. Also there would have been a set procedure about how to continue the tournament with a missing player, and it would have been up to the director and/or the SO to decide about any other measures (eg banning the player), so there would have been no OP.

[Bbradley62]

Except by inference from experience, how do we know this is online?

I looked it up in myhands before replying.

[RMB1]

Director is called. What should happen now?

 

There are two aspects to what should happen now.

1. The departing player should be disciplined following the sanctions and procedures available to the TD and the Tournament Organiser.
   
2. If a substitute can be found, I would cancel the 7NT bid and allow the substitute to call. On BBO, I would instruct the substitute to request an UNDO (and instruct opponents to acceed). Face-to-face, I would deem the disqualification of the departing player to start before he bid 7NT.
   

[barmar]

Many (most?) BBO tourneys have UNDO disabled. Even TD's can't override this.

 

I was playing in an ACBL BBO indy a few days ago, and CHO took umbrage at something in my profile so he overbid (although not the typical 7NT). We called the TD. They put in a sub, but couldn't allow an undo, so they cancelled the board and assigned artificial scores.

 

I don't think BBO currently provides any better solution to this.

[blackshoe]

IMO, when you write software to implement a game, the software should wherever possible comply with the rules of the game. Only where it is impossible to do this (is it ever?) should the rules have to change to conform to the requirements of the software. Of course, that didn't happen, and folks will argue that it's "too late" to change now. I think that's bull, but I suppose nobody who can do anything about it cares what I think. :ph34r:

 

In this particular case and similar ones, "undo" should be under the control of the director, and the software should be written (or changed) to reflect that.

[jillybean]

Many (most?) BBO tourneys have UNDO disabled. Even TD's can't override this.

 

I was playing in an ACBL BBO indy a few days ago, and CHO took umbrage at something in my profile so he overbid (although not the typical 7NT). We called the TD. They put in a sub, but couldn't allow an undo, so they cancelled the board and assigned artificial scores.

 

I don't think BBO currently provides any better solution to this.

 

When I run a tournament I can turn undo's off/on at will. I like having undo off so that players don't try to get an undos when they misplay a card. I make an announcement saying call me if you need an undo in bidding. I use BBO Windows when I run tournaments but I imagine the same feature to change settings mid tournament is available in Flash. Perhaps you need to be the person who created the tournament to do this rather than a listed director, if so, that may be a simple fix?

 

I think the truth is a lot of people want to play "nice bridge" and insist on undo's for play, some hosts/tds even threaten a penalty if undo's are rejected. When it comes to undo's in bidding, many "directors" wouldnt recognize a misclick from a misbid or know how to manage the former. Sorry this sounds harsh.

[mr1303]

I posted the example as there was a bit of an argument between me and the director over which assigned score to give. Initially the director was adamant that the score should be Average == but changed it to Average ++ to avoid damaging the partner of the abusive player (this was a pairs event, not an individual) after I protested about being given an average score instead of average +.

 

I suggested that Ave+- or Ave+= would be more appropriate and told him/her I would post for more experienced guidance.

[blackshoe]

For arguing with the director, a PP of 10% of a top. B-) As for the original infraction, is there a regulation in place covering this situation? Yes? I would apply it. No? Okay, is a substitute available? If so, I would use my general power under Laws 81B1 and 81C1 to seat one, canceling the 7NT bid and trying to get a normal result. If no substitute is available, I would award an artificial adjusted score IAW Law 12C2. Note that it's the contestant who gets the adjusted score, and in a pairs game, the contestant is the pair*. So the partner of the 7NT bidder is going to have to accept his average minus with good grace. The NOS gets average plus, unless my investigation uncovers evidence that they were somehow at fault or partly at fault for this mess. I would ban, or recommend the TO ban, the 7NT bidder from further play in these tourneys.

 

Awarding the OS average or average plus to avoid damaging the partner of the abusive player (or for any other reason, given that the OS is directly at fault) is illegal.

 

* In an individual, the contestant is the individual player, but Law 12C3 says we award the same adjusted score to both members of a pair, although the offender's partner does not get a PP unless he is also to blame.