Give TD the power of God

[1eyedjack]

In a recent tourney, Undos during play were inhibited.

 

Whatever the merits of that as a policy, it would seem to me sensible that on an individual hand the TD should have the power to release that inhibition if he judges it appropriate.

 

As far as I can tell the TD hands are currently tied in this regard. If the tourney is set with no undo, nothing TD can do about it.

[diana_eva]

In a recent tourney, Undos during play were inhibited.

 

Whatever the merits of that as a policy, it would seem to me sensible that on an individual hand the TD should have the power to release that inhibition if he judges it appropriate.

 

As far as I can tell the TD hands are currently tied in this regard. If the tourney is set with no undo, nothing TD can do about it.

 

TD can enable undo during the tourney if necessary.

[1eyedjack]

TD can enable undo during the tourney if necessary.

OK, TD in this case appeared to be misinformed

[Vampyr]

Why should the rule be overruled when it is the same for everybody? Is there something unreasonable in not allowing undos? They are not allowed in actual play.

[1eyedjack]

Why should the rule be overruled when it is the same for everybody? Is there something unreasonable in not allowing undos? They are not allowed in actual play.

I am not familiar with the 2017 laws. Heck, I can't claim to be that familiar with the 2007 laws, but your comment caused me to look them up if only to confirm my dim recollection that there were circumstances in which a card could be retracted during play.

 

We have to acknowledge that the 2007 (perhaps also the 2017 laws) do not provide a one-for-one match with online playing conditions. There were some consultations afoot over the last decade or so to produce some "official" laws dedicated to the online game but I do not know how they panned out.

 

But just looking at the 2007 laws as they apply to the face to face game, on my review prompted by your post I find that there are some circumstances when a card can be retracted, or deemed not to have been played. They largely seems to mimic the equivalent rules in bidding: A misclick, particularly if corrected without pause for thought, of a card played (or bid made) unintentionally can be undone. Not without the potential for UI, of course, but then that applies in bidding as well as in play also.

 

Take law 45C3. This introduces the word "deliberately" in connection with a card in dummy touched by declarer. The implication being that if the card is not touched "deliberately" then it falls outwith the compulsion in law 45C3 that it be a "played" card.

 

Law 45D appears not to have any relevance to online play, but it is of some relevance at least in establishing a precedent that a card can be retracted.

 

But perhaps of most relevance are laws 47 (specifically law 47C) and 45C4(b).

 

I can understand why by default you might choose settings that deny an undo during play. But granting a TD the right to override in pursuit of the above laws seems sensible. But now I am informed that they do have that right anyway, so the whole thing is a non-issue.

[Vampyr]

Law 45D appears not to have any relevance to online play, but it is of some relevance at least in establishing a precedent that a card can be retracted.

 

Not really. A card can be retracted only following an irregularity that is impossible in online play.

[steve2005]

If undo's aren't allowed by the conditions of the tournament I don't think it should be changed later.

A player can click the option to confirm card played. Then a player would have to click wrong twice to misplay. Paying attention is rewarded. Misplays are a part of bridge even off-line. At least on-line you can't revoke or lead out of turn.

[1eyedjack]

Not really. A card can be retracted only following an irregularity that is impossible in online play.

Double.

 

Possibilities for irregularity are legion. Some, but some only, are controlled in online play, such as play out of turn or revoke. Some are not. It only requires one example to make the point but I can think of two right off: BIT and MI.

[1eyedjack]

If undo's aren't allowed by the conditions of the tournament I don't think it should be changed later.

I don't think that it should be necessary to state in the conditions of contest that the TD shall have the power to correct an irregularity in a manner expressly permitted by the Laws. The term " ... by the players at the table, absent TD sanction" as an addendum to "undos disallowed (in play) ..." should be implied as a given. It is something of a mouthful to state expressly, it is hard enough to get players to read the conditions as it is, and the conditions generally are only imposed on the players, not TDs.

 

Nor do I think it unreasonable (indeed it is arguably compulsory under the Laws) that the powers of such restitution be vested only in the director, and disallowing undo without prior referral to TD is all that the software setting seeks to achieve.

 

I wouldn't expect it to be particularly commonplace for such powers to be exercised. It s largely down to whether you have faith in the competence of the TD.

 

Anyway, storm in teacup. We are assured that TD has the power.

[Vampyr]

Would it not be simpler to play in tournaments in which undos were allowed?

[1eyedjack]

Would it not be simpler to play in tournaments in which undos were allowed?

It's hard enough to find tournaments where psychs are allowed.

 

Disallowing undos (and psychs) is popular. Tournament hosts (reasonably) tend to pander to the popular taste, so that even a significant minority preference does not tend to get a look in.

 

Anyway I prefer an environment in which the tournament most closely mimics the laws and their spirit. That is consistent with tournaments in which undos by players is proscribed unless individually sanctioned by a TD.

[Vampyr]

Why does the site allow prohibiting psyches? Anyway, they are "misclicks" that you didn't notice in time, aren't they?

[1eyedjack]

Why does the site allow prohibiting psyches? Anyway, they are "misclicks" that you didn't notice in time, aren't they?

The site provides the software, no more, no less. There are some aspects to the Laws that lend themselves to computer control, such as revokes and plays out of turn, and the site does a reasonable job of assisting with enforcing compliance in such cases.

 

But there is no software-based solution to regulate psychs and never can be. So that is down to conditions of contest within the discretion of tournament hosts, and their enforcement by TDs (poorly, in my experience).

 

There may be a higher power involved. ACBL-sanctioned tourneys have to operate by ACBL rules. But the site itself, as embodied by BBO inc, is strictly hands off and neutral.

[Vampyr]

The site provides the software, no more, no less. There are some aspects to the Laws that lend themselves to computer control, such as revokes and plays out of turn, and the site does a reasonable job of assisting with enforcing compliance in such cases.

 

But there is no software-based solution to regulate psychs and never can be. So that is down to conditions of contest within the discretion of tournament hosts, and their enforcement by TDs (poorly, in my experience).

 

There may be a higher power involved. ACBL-sanctioned tourneys have to operate by ACBL rules. But the site itself, as embodied by BBO inc, is strictly hands off and neutral.

 

I think that there should be rules though, or the site cannot call itself Bridge Base Online.

[1eyedjack]

I think that there should be rules though, or the site cannot call itself Bridge Base Online.

Don't see why not. There is certainly the OPTION to play bridge by the rules, if the organiser is so minded. What's in a name? Calling itself "Bridge or something similar Base Online" would be a bit of a mouthful.

 

It is not just banning psychs and not complying with undo regs by the way, there are plenty of other departures from F2F bridge, such as "best hand south" robot tourneys, goulash tourneys, and Bingo bridge. How would you name the site in 3 words so as to encompass all of that?

[barmar]

I think that there should be rules though, or the site cannot call itself Bridge Base Online.

The laws don't define the game of bridge. They say how to play it properly, and how to deal with violations, but if you don't enforce all the laws strictly you're still playing the game.

[janeball]

What ever the legal issues the most popular tournaments are timed. Can you imagine speedball when everything stops for the director to come and allow an undo. Some people already procrastinate in hope of getting a good board

[1eyedjack]

What ever the legal issues the most popular tournaments are timed. Can you imagine speedball when everything stops for the director to come and allow an undo. Some people already procrastinate in hope of getting a good board

I never suggested that a TD *had* to wield that power, only that he should possess it. If the other aspects of the tourney render them less appropriate then so be it. Just because speedballs are popular is not a reason to deny the option in a non-speedball event. Anyway, he has the power, we are informed, so I am content (or would be if TDs were educated in their powers).