More Problems in ACBL Tournaments

[glen]

In tonight’s ACBL tournament, the opponents had the director come to our table, and said that their last round opponents had called one of them a jerk, and had not alerted any of their special bids. The director said “I will speak to them severely”. I would expect instead, under zero tolerance, that these disrespectful players would immediately be substituted out of the event. Our opponents seem to think nothing would be done by the director.

 

On another hand, we are in 3NT. The ace of hearts is held up until the third round, where one opponent discards the 2 of spades from a suit of 6542. As he makes the discard he sends a message “Lavinthal discards”. However he has a suit preference for diamonds, not the lower suit, clubs. At the end of hand, when asked about the discard he said it was “neutral for diamonds”. The director was called, and after hearing all of this, indicated that the board will be looked at.

 

We never heard anything after this. After the tournament was over, I asked about the board. After three attempts with no replies, I was finally told just “ruling stands”. Another repeated attempts for a reason for this decision, was told “he did not have the cards available to make a signal for clubs.” As his spade suit was 6542, this seems impossible.

 

So for us to continue playing on ACBL tournaments on BBO, I would like to see:

 

- Zero Tolerance enforced.

 

- Directors inform players of decisions once they are made, including notifying when zero tolerance actions have been made, and when a "ruling" stands.

 

- Directors look closely at misinformation concerns.

 

 

The latter is important for otherwise it will slow down the game. We will get:

“We play Lavinthal discards.”

“And what is that please?”

“Low discards are suit preference for the lower suit, high discards are suit preference for the higher suit.”

“What did your 2 of spades discard mean?”

“Can you play please…”

“I still have 20 questions pending, you need to answer them first”.

[hotShot]

Do i read your post right?

 

You want a legal system where accusation is enough to lead to a punishment.

 

Trustworty people who's word is good enough to throw a player out of a tourney lied to you, about their signals.

 

The TD has no way to know what has been said while he's not at the table or what was said in privat chat. Enforcing zero tolerance online is not that easy.

[glen]

Do i read your post right?

 

You want a legal system where accusation is enough to lead to a punishment.

 

Trustworty people who's word is good enough to throw a player out of a tourney lied to you, about their signals.

 

The TD has no way to know what has been said while he's not at the table or what was said in privat chat. Enforcing zero tolerance online is not that easy.

With Okbridge, the TD had the ability to review previous chat on the spot, and then take action. If this feature is not available to them in BBO, then BBO needs to be changed.

 

The TD should be able to review the logged chat, see that 'Jerk' was said, and take action. Enforcing zero tolerance online is easy if the software provides for it.

 

As for the signals problem, I would not expect the people to be thrown out of the tourney. There was clearly some failure to communicate, so just cancel the board result, award each average, and help the people playing 'Lavinthal' discards explain their methods better to subsequent opponents, thus helping prevent future problems (which, since this was not done, will occur again).

[inquiry]

Hi Glen, we take a different approach on BBO. In the first place, the director should have been called immediately. However, we view calling some one a "jerk" or worse, as a zero tolerance offense for the entire site. Simple have the person called a jerk, or the TD, or someone else at the table report it to abuse.

 

True it will generally take abuse from an hour to 24 hours to investigate.So the tourney will be long over. However if such an action did occur, abuse will issue some kind of sanction. If this is the first and only "offense" this person has ever done, abuse might issue a mild warning (since jerk is not the most horrible thing people are called). If it is a repeat offense, then the actions abuse takes is stepped up, and often include tournment bans, or site bans... and in cases of serial repeaters a full site ban.

 

As for the carding incident, all your opponent is required to do is to alert you to their agreement (in this case lavinthal). They are free to ignore their agreement if they see fit (maybe in an attempt to fool you, maybe because they know their partner has nothing to contribute to the defense). you can play standard count and lie, you can play udca and lie, and you can play lavinthal and discard incorrectly by the system. This is a no-harm no foul situation, unless the director specifically rules they used the chat combined with the statement to double try to fool you. In general you should pre alert carding to avoid the possibility that an alert on carding can be used in an inappropriate manner.

[glen]

Thanks for the details on the zero tolerence.

 

On the signals, here's what we had.

 

DiscardingOpp: we play laventhial discards

DiscardingOpp: gto gdp

MeMeMeMe: so what's was this about lavinthal discards?

MeMeMeMe: 2 of spades discard?

DiscardingOpp: low spade was neutral for lower !d

->MeMeMeMe: Automated message: Director TDTDTDTDTD is now at the table as requested by MeMeMeMe

MeMeMeMe: hi, problem here

TDTDTDTDTD: how may I help pls

MeMeMeMe: on previous board, DiscardingOpp sends message "we play lavinthal discards" to us opponents in middle of hand

MeMeMeMe: however 2!S discard does not indicate !Cs, as in lavinthal

DiscardingOpp: yes

MeMeMeMe: but we are now told "it is neutral for lower !D"

DiscardingOpp: !d is lower

MeMeMeMe: !C is lower than !D

MeMeMeMe: so either unusual form of "lavinthal" or suit confusion or something

 

Names changed to protect, TD is the director, Me is me, DiscardingOpp is you know. The first chat line was sent at point of discard, the second "gto gdp" was sent at conclusion of play, and the rest is as we moved on to the next board.

 

So do you think the opponents properly informed us of their agreements?

 

 

----------------

 

Btw if I had to guess what they were playing, it would be that they play suit preference not by the suit ranking, but by in a rotating method with the suit being discarded in the middle, such that if they had three suits:

 

C

S

D

 

 

A low spade would indicate D, since D is lower than S. A high spade would indicate C, since it is "higher" than S. If they were discarding in Ds, then:

 

S

D

C

 

Now a low D indicates C, and a high D indicates S. If discarding in Cs:

 

D

C

S

 

A low C would indicate S, a high C D.

 

Informing opponents of this method would require something more than just 'Lavinthal'.

[inquiry]

I think this is not a have to guess that they were playing revolving lavinthal signal or not situtation. They could still be playing Lavinthal (normal, not rotating), and the low spade discard which would then express interest in clubs would still be "neutral" for ♦. They did say neutral for !d which on BBO gives a diamond symbol. It's possible your opponent thought your complaint was his partner (or himself) had the diamond queen rather than not having the club queen.

 

Having said this, if their discard of a lowest card in a suit means, "no specific interest or neutral" in the highest of the remaining two suits and nothing about the lowest suit, of course they need to alert it as something other than lavinthal. It is not unusual to give a lavinthal signal in a suit you are known NOT TO WANT (say good stuff in dummy or some other way to be clear that is not the suit to lead) to express lack of interest in the obvious suit (here leading through dummy's diamonds instead of a spade would be the obvious lead if opener got into lead (after taking his hearts)

 

The actual hand is where no one would give an honest signal of any sort anyway. Here is the hand and the bidding, and the play where the spade 2 was discarded...

 

[hv=d=n&v=a&n=st7ht96dkj63ckj43&w=sqj8hkqj74dt4cq97&e=s6542h53dq872ct65&s=sak93ha82da95ca82]399|300|Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 

 -     Pass  Pass  1♣

 1♥    2♣    Pass  3NT

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

[/hv]

 

HK H6 H3 H2

HQ H9 H5 H8

H4 HT S2 HA <<------

 

This was an imps event. down one is will be fine. It is clear to the fellow throwing away the spade if his partner has an entry, he will cash two more hearts for down one. It is clear to the overcaller that his partner can't have much. A king or queen at most (probably a !Dqueen, given that with no hcp, declearer would open 2NT, and with a king, declarer would have 4D, 1S, 1H and 4C tricks with the club hook that would be needed and it is all academic anyway. Second, with CLUBS bid and raised, and four clubs in dummy to KJxx, no one in their right mind would signal for clubs, lavinthal or not, with the queen. In this case, the spade discard, even playing lavinthal looks normal... and is as your opponent described, neutral for diamonds (it expresses no interest in diamonds). It is true, it ask for a club (some other spade could be thrown), but bridge logic here is clear, a club ask isn't something too overwhelming here.

 

To be honest, looking at the hand, I can't see where you have a complaint, and I would agree with the director. But at least now we can all see what happened so it will be easier to get opinions of others on this.

 

Back to the issue of "jerk". I do think it would be nice if TD's could see the chat from the tables when they are not there... and I wish yellows could too. :-)

[glen]

Thanks for the detailed reply. It does make a lot a sense that ♣s would not be a suit to signal for, and thus the 2♠ discard would be just saying nothing about ♦s, and in which case we would have no complaint.

 

However when I asked for a reason for the ruling I was told by the TD:

"he claims that he was out of correct cards to show a C".

 

Which left me more confused.

 

Certainly I will have wrong rulings in the future, and I will have right rulings that I disagree with; in this particular case without knowing the actual partnership agreements I don't know what the right ruling is. The problem I had was not the ruling itself, but:

 

- No follow-up from the director (e.g. "I looked at the hand and he would foolish to signal for a club, so result stands", or "result stands, I will explain after the tournament if you like to know the reasons").

- After asking about the board when the tournament was over, several times, then just being told "board will stand".

 

It would be better if players could get closure. I do understand that the director has lots to do, and hence I waited until the tournament finished before following up.

 

------

 

Return to "Jerk" for a minute, perhaps the TD could ask them "it has been reported you may have called your opponent a Jerk - did you do so?". Then:

 

If answer is no, inform them that it will be double-checked with abuse to confirm, and that there will be no problem if they didn't.

 

If answer is yes, take immediate action with regards to the event, and later action as deemed appropriate.

[Winstonm]

As far as the "Lavinthal" discussion goes, it is hard to answer as we do not know the bidding or dummy's cards - perhaps it was obvious that clubs could be eliminated as a source of tricks. If so, then bridge logic would indicate that the information provided was correct. There is a fine line I believe between full disclosure and informative disclosure - in other words, declarer is entitled to know as much about the signal as the parner of the one who signalled, but no more. In some cases, signals can be ambiguous and it is up to partner to work it out; declarer has no right to be told, "Well, I'm signalling for diamonds," if the partner of the signaller has to work it out between diamonds and clubs, for example. In this situation, all declarer has the right to know is the methods of signalling.

 

I had a similar situation once where after I led the declarer asked me: "What are your carding methods?" I thought he meant 3rd seat signals and told him Standard, as that was what we were playing at the time. Turns out he wanted to know leads as well. We had a convention card properly filled out on the table, and I in no way meant to mislead or decieve declarer, but was making an honest attempt to answer his particular question. It simply didn't occur to me that he was asking about leads. The director was called and in typical ACBL fashion, (No offense, their job is brutal and thankless), straddled the fence and rebuked both sides - declarer for not looking at the card or asking a more precise question, and me for not fully disclosing all of our agreements.

 

As long as there is no deliberate attempt to mislead with false information, let the deals stand. As in your case, the defender may have had an understanding that Lavinthal meant revolving discards and assumed you played them that way as well.

 

After all, for most of us it's only a game; we aren't competing for a place on the National team; it's just not that big of deal to let it ruin an otherwise enjoyable time challenging one's mind.

 

WinstonM

[mink]

On another hand, we are in 3NT. The ace of hearts is held up until the third round, where one opponent discards the 2 of spades from a suit of 6542. As he makes the discard he sends a message “Lavinthal discards”. However he has a suit preference for diamonds, not the lower suit, clubs. ...

The information that he is playing lavinthal, was this public or private chat? Did you or your partner asked him about the carding or not?

 

Assuming private chat and information given without being asked along with the ♠2, this is not ok. There is no obligation at this point of the game to inform opps about carding if they did not ask. So I interpret this as actively misleading opps - a severe foul. No problem of course if it was given in response to a question by North or South.

 

About a director: he really should inform the participants about his decisions, and he should be available for questions after the tourney, especially if he directs a paid event.

 

Karl

[glen]

Neither of us asked about the carding (though declarer had checked the convention card) - about the time the ♠2 was played, he sent by private message:

 

DiscardingOpp: we play laventhial discards

 

 

See posting above for this and other chat - spelling as per actual message.

[jillybean]

After all, for most of us it's only a game...

 

This isn’t the first time this comment has been made and it really gets me going! Its an all too easy excuse for poor play, poor alerting, poor td’ing. I don’t believe it ruins the entire match but it does cause frustration, should we not expect more and use these occasions to educate people?

 

If everyone took that attitude, taken to the extreme we wouldn’t be playing bridge for much longer.

Go Fish anyone? :ph34r:

[pbleighton]

"After all, for most of us it's only a game..."

 

"This isn’t the first time this comment has been made and it really gets me going! Its an all too easy excuse for poor play, poor alerting, poor td’ing. I don’t believe it ruins the entire match but it does cause frustration, should we not expect more and use these occasions to educate people?

 

If everyone took that attitude, taken to the extreme we wouldn’t be playing bridge for much longer."

 

Two suggestions:

 

1) Why take this attitude to the extreme?

2) Chill.

 

Speaking for myself, I find my enjoyment of the game FAR more frequently diminished by those who take the game too seriously than by those who don't take it very seriously at all.

 

I would rather deal with "what the heck" than with people who use any excuse to call the director, who berate their partners, and who generally don't have any clue that bridge really IS just a game.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

After all, for most of us it's only a game...

 

This isn’t the first time this comment has been made and it really gets me going! Its an all too easy excuse for poor play, poor alerting, poor td’ing. I don’t believe it ruins the entire match but it does cause frustration, should we not expect more and use these occasions to educate people?

 

If everyone took that attitude, taken to the extreme we wouldn’t be playing bridge for much longer.

Go Fish anyone? :ph34r:

The fact that I comprehend that bridge is a game does not perforce mean that I do not take the playing of same seriously; however, I have found for me worrying about my own efforts produces more satisfying results than quibbling about what the opponents do or don't do, say or don't say; those that rely solely on the messages from the opponents signalling methods are usually too mentally lazy to work out the problem on their own and furthermore expose themselves to good opponents who will not be so eager to play a "true" card 100% of the time. (See Jlall's post on whether to play the King or 10 against Wolff and parter. I bet everyone at that table knew the signalling methods and I'm pretty sure it was being seriously contested.)

 

Only in a clear-cut situation where the opponents have misled me as to methods and it was apparent that each of them knew their true methods would I find damage; people make errors; one doesn't always hold the perfect card for one's methods; and sometimes they actually try to mislead an unwary declarer.

 

This "I'm a victim" - "black and white" mentality in a game full of shades of gray is what annoys me.

 

I think the Eagles said it best: "Get Over It." :)

 

WinstonM

[Winstonm]

I really hadn't read this part that closely.

 

We will get:

“We play Lavinthal discards.”

“And what is that please?”

“Low discards are suit preference for the lower suit, high discards are suit preference for the higher suit.”

“What did your 2 of spades discard mean?” Opp just told you what it was. You know as much as his partner and are entitiled to no more than that

“Can you play please…”

“I still have 20 questions pending, you need to answer them first”.

"O.K. Go ahead"

"Does your signal mean you have the Queen of diamonds?"

"Go Fish!"

 

:ph34r:

[pbleighton]

"This "I'm a victim" - "black and white" mentality in a game full of shades of gray is what annoys me.

 

I think the Eagles said it best: "Get Over It.""

 

Yup.

 

Peter

[glen]

those that rely solely  on the messages from the opponents signalling methods are usually too mentally lazy to work out the problem on their own

Let's take the "solely" out of there and see what we have:

 

"those that rely on the messages from the opponents signalling methods are usually too mentally lazy to work out the problem on their own"

 

So players who include information from the opponents signalling in forming their line of play are "too mentally lazy"?

[glen]

As to GOI - Get Over It - I'm not looking for a decision or views that the particular ruling was right, wrong, black, white, grey or pink. I asked that:

 

- Zero Tolerance (be) enforced.

 

- Directors inform players of decisions once they are made, including notifying when zero tolerance actions have been made, and when a "ruling" stands.

 

- Directors look closely at misinformation concerns.

 

Certainly the TD enforcement (i.e. beyond just the rule) that you can play only what is on your cc (in a tournament today, in reply to "let's use your cc" by one opponent, the other asked "what's a cc") goes a good way towards helping resolve misinformation problems. Also the guideline not to just use the name of a convention when explaining a bid helps too. In signalling, though, the box on the card is small, and names are often used (Lavinthal, Rusinow, Foster echo, Smith echo etc.). My wife and I play Rusinow, and we pre-alert with "rusinow (2nd from touch honours) thru out hand" so we explain what Rusinow means. Most "O/E" players use Odd to show encouragement, and Even to show suit preference, but some reverse it and use Odd for suit preference. Somehow we need to get beyond using "names" to describe signalling methods, and replace it with methods that describe the signalling.

 

Thanks all for your comments.

[Winstonm]

So players who include information from the opponents signalling in forming their line of play are "too mentally lazy"?

 

Obviously not else the word "solely" would have been excluded without editing.

 

Seriously, I don't see the initial problem. Lavinthal discards, like many other forms of signals, are not always precise - one of the problems being that your discards mean something and sometimes you wish they meant nothing. In the hand in question, it is not unreasonable to play a low spade to indicate no desire for a diamond switch, and with the bidding and looks of dummy the defender is hoping his partner can make a reasonably intelligent decision that he really doesn't want clubs, either. He could have tried a middle card, but I see his problem and don't object to the low spade. That's the problem with signals like Lavinthal - sometimes instead of saying, "lead this", you have to instead say, "don't lead that". Partner then has to try to decipher the meaning.

 

I play upside down O/S signals against suit contracts; my low encouraging card to partner's lead says nothing about the led suit; it says I cannot tolerate a switch to the obvious shift suit. This is much like playing the 2 of spades in Lavinthal - it doesn't always say "lead a club" but instead says "don't lead diamonds".

 

I believe this was a frivilous call of the TD. The opponent went out of his way to send a private message to inform of his carding agreements, which is way more than I ususally get - I usually have to ask. He is not required to disclose that his system has just given him a discarding headache, though. That is up to declarer to work out.

 

I do support the right to know, however, and your point is well taken that many times the explanations are too short and non-commital; however in this case, I do not believe that was so.

 

WinstonM

[glen]

I believe this was a frivilous call of the TD.

 

Certainly going to an appeal committee, if one existed for online play, would be frivolous. However calling the director is usually the wise and preferred course of action in potential problem cases (one can refer to numerous articles that encourage players to call a director). In the particular case, with the next hand already underway, there is little time to determine the ramifications of what just transpired (e.g. is showing suit preference for clubs silly given the bidding and dummy, or do the opponents need to indicate to each other what suits to guard). Instead, the director is called, it is explained there is possible misinformation or possible miscommunication, and then it’s on with the next hand. The director then takes a look at it, and, at some point, hopefully reports back on the situation and any resolution, if appropriate. If some misunderstanding was found, the director might suggest something to the players (e.g. putting “revolving Lavinthal” on the cc, or for players to ask when playing against Lavinthal), and this could very well eliminate other problems in the future. If there doesn’t appear to a problem to the director, after looking at, the director should indicate such, and provide guidelines on when s/he is to be called. However most guidelines I’ve seen recommend calling directors in cases of doubt, in order to facilitate resolving any potential problem and moving on.

[jillybean]

Peter, WinstonM

 

I’m not suggesting we encourage the players who repeatedly and intentionally call the TD with frivolous claims of damage, I think these are the exception. This isn’t about “Im a victim - black and white mentality” its about giving people information.

 

There is a wide range of skill levels playing on bbo, not all “experts” who understand the intricacies of a play alerted as “lav discard” or a bid alerted as “polish club”, and not all TD’s who know the correct ruling.

 

I get annoyed when these are flipped off as “just bridge” or “natural” or as in this case – no reply at all.

Everyone gains if you take the time to explain.

 

I’m going fishing :P

[pigpenz]

at nationals for awhile you had to pay to initiate an appeal...in the hope that frivolous appeals would be discouraged, I have no idea if the ACBL still does this. On bridge matters TD have to make bridge desicsions according to the

Rules of Bridge, when it involves something else then that is when the appeals committe e comes into being.

 

Full disclosure is what it means, full disclosure! but how many times do we run into opps who dont really fully disclose everything. Take for example i know my partner will open weak twos vull on any ratty six card suit. Now is that a partnership understanding? I have always felt opps are entitled to that information.

 

Zero Tolerance should also be zero tolerance, people in the Net have a tendency to say things that they wouldnt say to someone in person, each case has to be reviewed as is needed.

[keylime]

It's ironic that ZT is being discussed...

 

....considering that many TD's in online and real life bridge do very little if anything to discourage the behavior(s) that ZT was designed to limit. I have the gut feeling that the ones who direct don't want to be "the bad guy" with regards to this.

 

Full disclosure online is difficult at best. However, it's just as painstaking in real-life at the lower levels. This is part of the reason I am adding supplemental sheets and the WBF Convention Card to my regular ACBL card. I don't think I give enough full disclosure put it that way.

[Winstonm]

There is no perfect world, unfortunately. Trying too hard to create one slows the game to a crawl, and gives some players the mistaken idea that they are entitled to the same bridge knowledge that their opponents possess.

 

As an example, suppose I open 2H on AJ9xxx, and the opponents reach a 4S contract, and I lead a singleton diamond. My partner wins and returns the lowest diamond spot card and the opponent asks what that means. I explain that this is suit preference for clubs; however, I also know from my hand and the bidding that partner cannot hold the club Ace, so his signal is actually warning me not to underlead my heart honor(s). So instead of leading a club, I exit passively with a trump and later we catch 2 heart tricks to beat the contract whereas a club lead into declarer's AJ would have provided a heart pitch.

 

So have I fully disclosed? I have explained our agreements. However, I have not explained what I have learned over the course of many years of play. Partner and I have never actually discussed the meaning of this non-signal signal, but I would expect any competent partner to know and use it.

 

In most situations, nothing would be said as all the players involved would understand what happened. However, I have had similar situations occur where weaker opponents yelled for the director when this occurred. IMO, my responsibility as a player is to explain my agreements - I should not be compelled to teach the subtleties of the game during live play.

 

As long as all parties are following the "spirit" of the rule and trying to fully disclose within a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient.

 

WinstonM

[glen]

Let me modify this above example to bring it more in line with the complex cases that occur.

 

Suppose, playing online bridge, your partner opens 2♥ on A987xx, the opponents reach a 4♠ contract, and your partner leads a ♦ to your ace. The lead looks like a singleton to you, based on your holding and dummy’s. You hold Qx of ♥s, and nothing in ♣s. You play some non-standard carding, including reverse suit-preference (following what Meckwell does). Although your carding methods are somewhat marked on the convention card in the very limited space available, in the interest of explaining your methods, you private message the opponents to tell them you play “reverse suit preference”.

 

Looking at your holdings, and the two small ♥s in dummy, it seems dangerous to signal for a ♥ back, since this partner tends to lead from a AK headed suit, to have a look, before switching to a singleton. The middle ♦ cards, showing no preference, might be confusing to partner. So you play back a high ♦ spot, indicating a preference for ♣s, using reverse, or upside-down, suit preference.

 

Partner sees the signal, but knows from the bidding and his hand that you are very unlikely to hold the ♣ ace. So after ruffing the ♦, he exits passively with a trump. Later declarer decides to finesse in ♣s to make his contract, losing to the ♣ King held by the weak two bidder. Finessing the Queen in ♥s, twice, instead would have allowed him to make the contract, as it turns out.

 

Declarer, from his point of view, considers he might have been a victim of misinformation or of some miscommunication, based on you saying you had a preference for clubs, but seeing both you didn’t have one, and your partner didn’t assume you did. In this type of situation, it could easily be not clear to Declarer what had happened.

 

For resolution of this type of concern, I think the recommended approach should be to involve the Director. There are several reasons for this:

 

- For online bridge there is often little time for lengthy exchange of views before the next board or next round, and the game needs to go on.

 

- In the follow-up discussion between the two sides, there may be subsequent miscommunications or misunderstandings, resulting in an escalating incident.

 

- Players are under no obligation to explain their actions to their opponents, but just their agreements.

 

- Neither side may be able to relate to the viewpoint of the other.

 

So I think that Declarer here, with a possibly valid concern, should click for the Director (no “yelled for the Director” online as in your example). Then the next hand, or next round should go on. The Tournament Director (TD) arrives, and is informed of the situation from the perspective of Declarer. This calling of the TD should not be an ask for score correction, at least at this point, but instead just asking that the TD resolve a concern.

 

What I would like the Directors to do in these cases is to first understand the concern expressed, and if the concern can be handled right away, then do so. However without looking at the hand and just saying “the opponents have a right to false card” does not help settle the concern for Declarer in this instance. Once the TD accepts there is a concern, s/he should indicate that it will be looked at, and the players should go on to the next hand. In this case, the TD can say something like “I’ll look at the board and get back to you.”

 

Second, as time permits, the TD should determine if misinformation occurred, by confirming the partnership agreement involved and looking at the hand. Here, in this example, the TD might message you to ask what the high ♦ spot meant. You might reply that it was reverse suit preference, for ♣s. In the interest of speedy resolution, it would also help to indicate why you did what you did. Here you might add a note such as “I decided that I could not risk a heart return, so signalled for clubs, even though I had nothing in the suit.”

 

Third, as time permits, the TD should indicate the resolution of the matter to the players involved in the hand. To you, this might be “you did nothing wrong”. To Declarer, this could be something like “They described their agreements accurately; the defender did not want to risk signalling for hearts so decided to signal for clubs.”

 

So the TD becomes a facilitator in the resolution of concerns between players, leaving the players to play the game. This helps with the enjoyment of the game for all involved, and also maintains the flow of the game, including avoiding escalating incidents, which usually end awfully.

 

The TD may also find cases where there has been miscommunication and misunderstanding. Perhaps the Declarer in this case could not comprehend what ‘reverse suit preference’ meant. The TD may suggest that the method be described as ‘upside down suit preference’ and, in the limited space on the convention card putting ‘u/d suit pref’. The miscommunication or misunderstanding does not mean that one side is right, and one is wrong, and the TD should rule on damage here. Instead the TD looks for ways to ensure the misunderstanding/miscommunication doesn’t occur again, or occurs less often.

 

So I disagree that ‘following the “spirit” of the rule and trying to fully disclose with a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient’. I believe the TD will need to look into possible misinformation concerns from time to time, and by doing this the TD will improve things, both for the present, and for future tournaments. To ensure there is closure on these concerns, the TD should inform the involved players of the resolution.

 

With many of the concerns on possible misinformation, it will be difficult for the TD to both determine that misinformation did occur, and that it did do significant damage. Thus I believe that the TD priority should not be on the determination of damages, and/or assuming one side is the ‘offending side’, but on why the situation arose. For example there could very well have been misunderstanding or miscommunication between players. The TD should focus on how the situation can be prevented from occurring again and how to alleviate the present concern, instead of trying to reach the perfect ruling on the hand in question, which might only be possible after lengthy study and consultation with others.

 

So in summary, I ask that the TDs look closely at misinformation concerns, to facilitate the resolution of these for both the present and the future. I ask that the TDs inform players after they have looked at a concern, so that both the immediate concerns are alleviated, and that the concerns occur less often in the future. This is what I hope for in an online game with paid directors.

[Winstonm]

So I disagree that ‘following the “spirit” of the rule and trying to fully disclose with a reasonable time frame, then surely that is sufficient’. I believe the TD will need to look into possible misinformation concerns from time to time, and by doing this the TD will improve things, both for the present, and for future tournaments. To ensure there is closure on these concerns, the TD should inform the involved players of the resolution.

 

I do not disagree with your points that it would be best for the director to inform the players of his or her decisions and reasoning. It seems to me though that somewhere there has to be a point drawn between reasonable and unreasonable delays for informational purposes. A better convention card would help. Mandatory posting of convention cards would be nice. But most of all, what would be best is simply nice people acting nicely toward one another. Why, I wonder, is that so hard?

 

WinstonM