Did I do the right thing

[mr1303]

HI everyone.

 

Bidding on a hand went something like this:

 

2H X P P

P

 

The advancer of the doubler had nothing approaching a penalty pass of 2H, and did a runner as soon as the opening lead was made.

 

After finding a substitute, rather than impose a double game swing on the sub (4S was cold the other way, which most of the field were finding) I assigned average both ways.

 

Needless to say the declarer in 2H wasn't happy, and proceeded to complain, following up with "your tournaments are no fun".

 

So I decided to relieve his misery.

 

Was this reasonable?

 

Mark

[hrothgar]

You arbitrarily took a top board away from a pair...

You then removed a player from the event when he criticized your decision...

 

Not what I look for in a Tournament Director.

[the hog]

"Was this reasonable?"

 

No! I'm surprised you even need to ask.

[candybar]

You arbitrarily took a top board away from a pair...

You then removed a player from the event when he criticized your decision...

 

Not what I look for in a Tournament Director.

"Was this reasonable?"

 

No! I'm surprised you even need to ask.

When someone takes the time to explain the problem in a post, and ask for advice, I don't think these kind of responses are very helpful. If he needs to ask, then he needs to be educated, not dumped on.

 

I'm heartened that he took the trouble to try and find out the right answer, after having made a troublesome decision in the heat of running a tournament.

 

Now, to answer the question: The decision is not correct.

 

The 2HX declarer and his/her partner did nothing wrong at all, and deserve their result from this board, period, end of story.

 

The runner ran, so he deserves whatever you do about blacklisting. Sooner or later, BBO will start some better tracking system for this, but in the meantime, most of us just make runners into 'enemies' and don't let them back into our tourneys.

 

The remaining player and the new sub are stuck with a bad result. The original player was playing with the runner for whatever reason (pairs? indiv?) and must live with the actions of his partner.

 

It's my understanding that boards are 'credited' to the person who makes the first call in each seat, so this board would show for the runner, not the sub, in myhands. I don't know how tournament score is assigned when a sub comes in during the middle of a hand, maybe someone from BBO can answer this.

 

The 2HX declarer was correct to challenge your decision, and you can see in another thread that I also was booted from a tournament recently for questioning the totally wrong decision of a TD. May I humbly suggest, if you can find the names of the 2HX pair, you contact them and gently apologize -- it may raise your standing with them.

 

We all know it's hard as a TD, when making a decision you are unsure of, and are challenged by a player. In real life, it's easy to get the Law book and read the rules to them. In big tournaments, any director that is unsure can simply delay the decision and consult with other directors. These things aren't available as easily here online.

 

When I am challenged by a decision (especially an adjustment), which has actually only happened once to me online, I tell the player to wait and I review it carefully (and readjust if I decide he's right). The wait tends to cool down everyone involved. If you have co-TDs, ask their opinion.

 

When you are stuck making the decision alone, and you don't know the basics, you are going to make mistakes like this, and the only solution is to learn the basics better.

 

If I set up some TD lessons, would you attend (see the thread on 'this takes the cake')? At the very least, you can buy the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and take the time to read and study the parts that are most important online.

 

Since you have taken the trouble to find out what is right for the situation you posted, I suspect you are motivated enough to learn the rest and make yourself into a better TD. Good luck!

[mr1303]

To be fair, I did try to explain my decision to the player concerned, and it wasn't the first comment that regarding my booting of him, it was the 4th/5th, whereby my patience was exhausted.

 

On a similar note, suppose someone bid 7NTXX then did a runner. Presumably it would not be unethical to give an average here?

[Gerardo]

The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, no need to buy them, at least for now ;-)

[inquiry]

It was not reasonable. If you felt you HAD to assign a score, I guess AVE + to the innocent side and AVERAGE or Average minus to the other. But if the runner hadn't run, what would you do? That is what you should do here.

[david_c]

It would be nice if it were possible to give the sub an average without affecting the other players. But I suppose if you can't do that, it's better to leave well alone.

[Echognome]

I agree with David about it being nice to give the sub an average. I can't say that I've searched exhaustively, but subs are one thing that are not covered well by the laws and is a common issue in online bridge.

 

Also, right or wrong with the laws, if this were the first board in a short tourney, I would be more inclined to just assign average scores. I agree that this may not be the technically correct ruling, but the laws do not account for having idiots come in and try to ruin the game. First of all, they most often have to pay to play in f2f and even though you will find rude people, I have only encountered people that were actively trying to ruin the game in online bridge. It must be the anonymity.

[jillybean]

The last time this happened to me a sub came in, bid 7ntXX and left. Last board, no time to examine bidding, other hands etc – I think the only option available is to adjust A== ? Even when not last board it can be difficult (for me!) to determine the correct contract & outcome and make the adjustment - all while the tournament is running and other calls are happening.

 

I did add them to my ban list and report them to abuse for hopefully, a BBO suspension. :blink:

 

jb

[candybar]

The last time this happened to me a sub came in, bid 7ntXX and left. Last board, no time to examine bidding, other hands etc – I think the only option available is to adjust A== ?  Even when not last board it can be difficult (for me!) to determine the correct contract & outcome and make the adjustment - all while the tournament is running and other calls are happening.

The correct option, if you determine that the board was screwed by a deliberate action, is to award A+ to the pairs who are not at fault (Law 12A2 and 12C1).

 

If it was a sub who bid one disruptive hand and ran, I'd give both sides the A+. There is no need to examine the bidding at all, and improper to adjust the score to whatever you think the hand should make.

 

Your statement "I think the only option available is to adjust A== ? " says it all. It's obvious that you want to do a good job, but it is so much easier when you know what the applicable rule says.

[jillybean]

Why reward both pairs ?

A+ for non offending pair perhaps but why A+ for offending pair?

 

And why is it improper to adjust a board to actual result ?

[candybar]

1.  Why reward both pairs ?

2.  A+ for non offending pair perhaps but why A+  for offending pair?

3.  And why is it improper to adjust a board to actual result ?

1. The adjusted result of A+ should not in any way be considered a "reward". It is the result that the Laws require be given to any pair who cannot play a board through no fault of their own.

 

2. You are correct, A- for a pair at fault, or A to both if the fault is shared.

 

In the case you described, you said a sub had come in for one board and disrupted it, then left. The sub's partner did nothing wrong and neither did a new sub coming in next.

 

It's a little debatable perhaps, but let me make an analogy in live bridge -- suppose a kibitizer is asked to fill in for a sick player, pulls the East hand out of a board that has yet to be played, and throws it on the table face up, then runs out the door laughing. I would not consider EW to be at fault, even though it was E's hand, and I would give A+ to both sides, while sending the dogs after the kibitizer.

 

In your case, I really wouldn't consider the sub's partner nor the new sub to be at fault for this, and so I would award A+ to both sides, and send Abuse after the runner.

 

3. Adjusting a board that has not actually been played to some specific score is improper because you simply cannot tell how the play would have gone.

 

In the case of hands that time out with 2 or 3 tricks to play when the round changes, you can usually tell what the result would have been. My personal guideline is that about 8 or 9 tricks need to have been played for me to try and determine the outcome. Less than that, the default result stands. If I can determine that the slowness was the avoidable fault of one side, then we go to A+ and A-.

 

When a board is adjusted because something made it impossible to play normally, as in the case you describe, just follow Law 12.

[jillybean]

Thanks,

I am not clear why you would award A+ to both pairs. When a player bids or plays badly and leaves after the board is finished I do not adjust but clearly the remaining player here is not at fault.

Would awarding A+ to both pairs disadvantage the rest of the field?

 

When it comes to adjusting to actual result I base that on ‘if there is a clear line’ regardless of how many tricks have been played. My clear line is not going to be the same as an expert’s clear line but equally fair to the entire field.

[candybar]

I am not clear why you would award A+ to both pairs. When a player bids or plays badly and leaves after the board is finished I do not adjust but clearly the remaining player here is not at fault.

When a PAIR bids and plays a hand, they are considered one entity and the board is scored for the pair, even if one of them leaves for any reason.

 

This is a bit different from your earlier situation of a sub who sits down, bids 7N, then bolts from the table, deliberately disrupting the hand rather than bidding/playing it. Basically, I'm considering that sub as a disrupter, rather than as a player and part of a legitimate pair. A fine line, I grant you, and one that you would have to judge in each situation.

[jillybean]

backspace ;)

[McBruce]

The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, no need to buy them, at least for now ;-)

The link is nice, but there are many good reasons to buy the print version. Among them:

 

1. Number one rule of f2f Directing: Carry the book with you. Open it when you are not 150% sure of a ruling. (If you are sure, make the ruling, take the book back to the desk, and then look it up, just in case.)

 

2. Even if you don't direct f2f, it is a good reference whenever someone here refers to a Law. Faster than waiting for the link to load and clicking again one or two times to find the Law referenced. (Even worse if you persist with Microsoft Internet Explorer and cannot-yet-do tabbed browsing, and have the forums and the Laws in the same window...)

[Elianna]

1. Number one rule of f2f Directing: Carry the book with you. Open it when you are not 150% sure of a ruling. (If you are sure, make the ruling, take the book back to the desk, and then look it up, just in case.)

Even better: you can add tabs to index the book, so you can find frequent decisions more easily (especially when you're starting out, there's like, 6 things that come up frequently that you may not have memorized YET).

[coyot]

7NTxx and a runner could be IMHO treated as (don't know the official term in English)

"board that could not be played properly" (as in cases where i.e. a player mistakenly takes opps' cards from the board instead of his own and sees them.).

 

Non-offending pair deserves ave+, offending pair deserves ave- (mistake) or some serious prodecural penalty (intent).

 

A case of misunderstood bidding - passed takeout double, unfortunately, cannot be treated this way - so the sub WILL indeed have to live with a bad result.

 

So, I would adjust the board to actual result (reasonably played and reasonably defended), blacklist the runner and thank the sub for the patience and willingness to endure the rest of tourney despite a head start like that.

[mink]

candybar: 3. Adjusting a board that has not actually been played to some specific score is improper because you simply cannot tell how the play would have gone.

 

In the case of hands that time out with 2 or 3 tricks to play when the round changes, you can usually tell what the result would have been. My personal guideline is that about 8 or 9 tricks need to have been played for me to try and determine the outcome. Less than that, the default result stands. If I can determine that the slowness was the avoidable fault of one side, then we go to A+ and A-.

Candybar, I liked everything you wrote in this thread, but here I think you are wrong. First of all, there are boards where the outcome is clear even before the first card is played, or after 2 tricks are played. I guess you too would adjust to the clear result in such cases.

 

But even if the outcome is not clear, I think resorting to an artificial score is not correct. Unfortunately, not letting players finish a board that they started to play is against the laws - Law 8B:

End of Round

  In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players.

So the notion of an unfinished board cannot be found in the laws, and when adjusting this, we should try to find out what we can infer from the existing laws.

 

The most similar situation to a BBO-unfinished board is a claim. Therefore I would think it is appropriate to use the laws concerning a claim when dealing with unfinished boards. And a disputed claim is never resolved by an artifitical score. The difference between an unfinished board and a claim is, however, that there is no claimer with an unfinished board. Therefore, I do it like this: If I can determine which pair has caused the delay, I adjust as I would if this pair had claimed. If I cannot find out, I try imagine the most likely line and adjust accordingly. Of course I cannot be sure that this is the correct line. And if different lines result in making or going down, this makes a great differnence most times. But there are lots of cases where the different lines only differ in the amount of overtricks, and at least there - assuming IMPs - an assigned score is a much better solution than an artificial score.

 

Karl

[candybar]

I think this is one of those problems unique to online bridge, and handling it like a claim is a very reasonable suggestion, provided the line of play is clear enough (comparable to the claim statement made in an actual claim).

 

If I draw an analogy to f2f bridge, I'd choose a scenario where a player has to leave the game due to a sudden emergency, illness, etc, after x tricks had been played in a hand. How would you handle that?

 

I also think that a few of these situations that occur online but not in f2f may result in a few new Laws of Online Bridge, within a year or two ;)