Hurrahs for AbaLucy

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=s3ha82d74caj109832]133|100|Scoring: IMP

Played an AbaLucy tournament last night and this hand came up as the second of a two board set. On the first board, the opps had opened 2H with an Acol opener and his partner jumped to 3N with a 12-count and xx in hearts when their cc said weak 2 bids. The next hand, the one posted, was opened in first seat 2N. My pard doubled, and RHO bid 3D. I had squat with the K10x of diamonds but was fed up with this nonsense so I privately asked LHO what 2N meant. No answer. Asked again. No answer. TD! Director arrived and I explained that LHO would not explain his bid and that their CC was inaccurate as proven by the first hand. Director asked my LHO what 2N meant. He responded he was a sub. She said fine, what does 2N mean. No agreement he responded. Not good enough TD states. He still refused to explain. I then pointed out that during the bidding on the previous hand and on this one, RHO had typed a series of +++ signs. TD threw them out on the spot and barred this pair from future tournaments of hers and awarded us A+ with an apology that she couldn't do more.

 

I just want to say, Way to go, Lucy! I'll certainly revisit your tournaments again and again.

 

Winston[/hv]

[mcphee]

I am pleased you brought this up and have a suggestion for tournament directors.

 

It strikes me amazing that so many players are not able to handle the alert proceedure correctly. When they alert a bid an explanation box appears to which the majority of players post nothing in. It is so easy to type an explanation, 2H, 5+H and 4+ minor 3-9 or 7-10 what ever the range may be.

 

Some players put the name of the convention in this box. Who cares what the name is? You would like to know what it shows so that you and partner can defend the convention correctly according to your agreements. It is not up to you to know what Capp or DONT is, or one of several other different NT defenses. Players that type in the name are LAZY and in doing so slow down the game. Often what occurs is when you ask a question of an opponent they may not be looking at the chat and miss it, or if English is a problem they are unable to give a proper explanation.

 

If players are unable to offer an explanation of the bid they should not be premitted to use the convention. Partial explanations are simply not good enough. While I regret I am not able to ask oppenents questions in their native language that is not my fault, nor theirs. It is an unfortunate situation we all try and deal with as best as we can.

[Brandal]

He responded he was a sub. She said fine, what does 2N mean. No agreement he responded. Not good enough TD states. He still refused to explain. I then pointed out that during the bidding on the previous hand and on this one, RHO had typed a series of +++ signs. TD threw them out on the spot and barred this pair from future tournaments of hers and awarded us A+ with an apology that she couldn't do more.

 

I just want to say, Way to go, Lucy! I'll certainly revisit your tournaments again and again.

 

Winston

If the player really was a substitute,noone can blame

him/her for "no agreement"....and certainly not go to

this extreme?

 

Bad bids,wrong bids,overbids,underbids,misunderstandings,

assuming pd understands.....is still not a crime in bridge?

[jillybean]

If the player was a sub, 'no agreement' is the correct answer, anything more is misinformation and I assume unauthorized.

 

Perhaps there is more to this...

[han]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with saying "no agreement". When I suspect (if I know my partner) that partner will get it I often write "undiscussed but intended as such and such". This is probably more than I'm obliged to tell the opponents (unless past experience strongly suggests that partner will get it).

[Guest Jlall]

I think the point is there must be some kind of agreement. Such as +++ +++= strong 2.

[epeeist]

If the player was a sub, 'no agreement' is the correct answer, anything more is misinformation and I assume unauthorized.

 

Perhaps there is more to this...

Even if one is "right", to not do what the TD says is the problem. Plus the possible signalling.

 

If I think my explanation of a bid is sufficient, but the TD says "give more information", or "explain what your bid meant", that's what I'm obliged to do. I may briefly and politely argue with the TD, but to persistently refuse the TD's directions justifies kicking me out. Even if I was "right".

 

Also, repeatedly ignoring (polite) questions about one's bid from an opponent is rude. Tell your opponent if you believe you've already complied with your obligations. Don't ignore them.

 

As for the possible communication between partners, that would also be grounds for kicking out. Especially if the opponents failed to answer the TD's questions (e.g. "What did those +++ symbols mean?").

 

Also, I disagree that being a sub automatically means everything is "no agreement". It's possible in my view to have implicit agreements -- that is, if you expect your p to correctly understand what your bid means (because of e.g. their profile and skill level), it's unfair to say "no agreement". E.g. p's profile says "2/1", my profile says "2/1", I sub and with no discussion at all about bidding reply in a new suit at the 2-level over p's one-level opening, I expect my partner to understand that as game-forcing. And it would be unfair not to explain the meaning to opponents if they asked. Likewise, if I open 2NT, I expect my partner to understand it has a certain meaning.

[Walddk]

(e.g. "What did those +++ symbols mean?").

Those +++ (3 pluses with no spaces) stand for "scheduled vugraph commentators are able to receive private chat messages while commentating".

 

I am not aware of anything related to a tournament. I doubt that Uday is. If they bear any resemblance to a legitimate abbreviation in a tourney, I don't think that any player would know.

 

Roland

[Winstonm]

The opening 2N held x, Axx, xx, AJ108xxx. Maybe he was a sub...maybe he was psyching....but no matter, the conditions of contest state that a convention card must be accurately filled out and their card was not.

 

Undiscussed or No agreement simply doesn't fly with a straightforward bid - even a sub would ask what system he was playing. If the bidder were the sub as stated, then to open 2N on this hand means either he was psyching or understood he was playing a system that showed this hand. If he were psyching, then he can still respond, SAYC to the question without giving UI.

 

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant. If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

 

Wouldn't it be clever to have 4 or 5 systems available and during the auction type out +++ to show which system you are using on this hand and then claim "undiscussed" or "no agreement" when questioned?

 

There is a burden to bear when playing outside one's own country - accomodating oneself to the local customs - if the old French cards are in use, then you'd better learn to distinguish between the face cards. If you cannot speak the language, you had best have a convention card filled out that is readable to the opponents.

 

I wouldn't expect to be able to get away with "no agreement" or "undiscussed" simply because of a language barrier - when I chose to go outside my native tongue, I take with me the responsibility to in some way inform my opponents of my methods. As a sub, I could simply fill out a CC that says nothing but ACOL, SAYC, or the like - if my standard system becomes more complex than this, I have the duty to spell it out on the CC if I am unable to communicate through speech.

 

Winston

[jillybean]

I think +++ was sent to the table the previous hand and has nothing to do with the alert/explanation issue.

 

Director should have been called first instance if '+++' was seen as some kind of signal.

[Chamaco]

The opening 2N held x, Axx, xx, AJ108xxx. Maybe he was a sub...maybe he was psyching....but no matter, the conditions of contest state that a convention card must be accurately filled out and their card was not.

That was evidently a psyche: I think there is nothing wrong in psyching 2NT and alerting "No agreement" x, Axx, xx, AJ108xxx.

 

With "No agreement", most people , including you, will assume a 20-22 hand or so.

 

If that was a psyche, as I do think, would you have preferred he alerted it as "20-22 balanced" when he held a completely different hand ?

 

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

 

As to the CC to be post: I agree this is the only way to solve this issue, but then again the regulation must be strict: either you absolutely enforce a CC or you just let go and forget about CCs.

[Guest Jlall]

come on, obviously something was going on.

 

1) the guy bids 3N after his partner makes a "weak" 2 bid with a random 12 count. Lo and behold his partner did not have a weak 2. Surely anybody would be suspicious at this point?

 

2) on that hand there was +++ typed. This may or may not be relevant, but is certainly fishy.

 

3) the guy opens 2N on this hand.

 

what more do we need, the guy to tap his arm 3 times?

[Double !]

I know (via BBO) a couple of the female Abalucy TDs, and am familiar with a 3rd. I suspect that the one involved would appreciate knowledge of the support that this forum has offered for her directing efforts.

[kenberg]

Psyching is one thing, just screwing around is another. Recently someone in an indy opened 1NT and passed his partner's Stayman bid. So we get a random top or bottom. Top, in this case. I checked back after the tourney and found he came in last, and looking over some of his hands he often seemed to just do whatever came to mind at the moment. I never say a word if someone makes a bid or play that I regard as unwise but which happens to work. I strongly doubt that would be the correct description here. These guys (or so I think) just get their kicks by lousing up everyone else's game. Dumping them is a fine response. Simple, direct, effective.

[dogsbreath]

hi

simple, effective, direct ??????????? i think not

If you play Abalucy you are still subject to random and arbitrary decisions, as in other tourneys. I was booted from my last Aba tourney (long time ago) for complaining about TD flooding the screen with Aba rules that all members and guests are supposed to know BEFORE play. I immediately resigned from Abalucy.

Aba has rules about rudeness, but apparently they dont apply to TD's ..you take your chances here just the same as anywhere else.

Rgds Dog

[1eyedjack]

If I understand correctly, a sub was introduced and that partnership neglected to update a previously uploaded CC. That seems to be the sum total of the offence. Personally I don't rate that as worthy of expulsion from the event, but I am perhaps not in possession of all of the facts, nor am I a member of abalucy club so who am I to comment. Permanent expulsion seems a bit over the top.

 

A salutory lesson: If you have loaded a CC and then accept a sub for your partner, be sure to delete the loaded CC.

 

Perhaps some minor changes to the software might help:

Automatically disclose on the screen if a player is a sub (and perhaps for how many hands).

Automatically delete a loaded CC when a sub is introduced

[kenberg]

Upon reflection, I should perhaps have said nothing. I have never played in abalucy and truly know nothing about it. From time to time here on bbo as elsewhere I encounter someone who decides to screw up a game, basically because he can. I favor a dose of street justice for those folks. I am totally ignorant of any larger issues concerning abalucy and so will say nothing more about it one way or the other.

 

Ken

[pigpenz]

Full Disclosure should be just that, no agreement is only part of the answer :lol:

Last night I had a opp type in with 4 tricks left well done partner :unsure: True this individual should be able to count to nine ( the one playing the hand) but dummy should not be able to say this.

 

Pretty soon there will be no kibitzers no chatting no anything, yuck! I hope not but do find that reading some of the ridiculous chat annoying and especially the tournament rules time after time after time.

[jillybean]

Pretty soon there will be no kibitzers no chatting no anything, yuck! I hope not but do find that reading some of the ridiculous chat annoying and especially the tournament rules time after time after time.

TD's wouldn't have to flood the screen with rules if the same people (who already knew the rules) were playing OR everyone read the rules before registering - this isnt feasible.

I doubt if many at all pay attention to the rules posted prior to the tournament or those sent at the beginning of a tournament. It may be good to be able to delay registration or the first deal until everyone has read the rules and checked off 'I accept' :unsure:

 

jb

[mgoetze]

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

 

Nonsense. The opponents are only entitled to know as much as your partner knows. If nothing similar has ever come up in your partnership, "undiscussed" is a perfectly valid answer. Only when you have reason to believe that your partner will understand you do you have to explain, e.g. "undiscussed but we've both read Robson/Segal so he'll probably take it as a FNJ".

[candybar]

I also have seen a lot of bad directing, spamming the tournament chat, and serious rudeness from the TDs and women who run that club. I don't play their tournaments any more, and I intend not to renew my membership.

 

The chat in those tournaments is always flooded, first with all the rules (of which there seem to be excessive numbers), and then for the rest of the tournament with all the TD's "clever" comments and spam from a few of the regulars. All the serious players I know have quit playing, and you can tell membership is declining from the 10-15 advertisements sent to the lobby begging for players for every tournament.

 

The only decent TD they had resigned a couple of weeks ago. The rest are overbearing controllers while TDing, and very rude when playing. The one time I called the (decent) TD about the rudeness, he said, "she owns the club, I can't do anything". My personal impression is that the club exists primarily for the ego of the people who run it.

 

It's a real shame, because a good club for advanced players would be very nice to have, but this club is definitely not for serious players.

[1eyedjack]

Full Disclosure should be just that, no agreement is only part of the answer

 

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

 

PURLEEASE let's not rehash that tired old argument. Both Pigpenz and Winstonm participated in the following thread and should therefore know that the above quotes are inaccurate.

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=77943

[Winstonm]

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

 

Nonsense. The opponents are only entitled to know as much as your partner knows. If nothing similar has ever come up in your partnership, "undiscussed" is a perfectly valid answer. Only when you have reason to believe that your partner will understand you do you have to explain, e.g. "undiscussed but we've both read Robson/Segal so he'll probably take it as a FNJ".

I could certainly accept this in a number of situations - a sub hastily arrives and is dealt the first hand and opens 1S and his partner bids 3C. What is it? He probably doesn't know and legitimately so. But when the opening is 2N, undiscussed is not a valid answer. Opponent could say, I play ACOl but we haven't discussed anything yet. That's OK. Note that I did not complain about the lack of an alert - my complaint was when I asked what the meaning of the bid was there was total silence - no answer at all after two queries - and I had looked at the convention card, though I knew it to be inaccurate. I had done all I could do to protect myself.

 

But when the opponents have a card filled out that that says 2N is 20-21 and the previous hand shows the card to be inaccurate along with strange +++ and ++++++ showing up during the bidding (yes, it happened on each hand) and then responder pulls the double of 2N with a 7-card diamond suit to the AQJxxxx it takes no genius to know that something more than undiscussed is occurring - at the very least a fielded psyche which in itself shows prior knowledge of "style".

 

What are the first words out of one's mouth when sitting down with a new pard? What system, pard? It's universal. Even if the answer is Mongolian Club, the opponents have a right to know this - even if you have no clue as to what Mongolian Club is or what a 2N bid in that system means.

 

And the real oddity is that these "undiscussed" explanations seem to come not with a standardized action but with an unusual action.

 

Maybe the only action that makes sense is to impose a simplified CC that is automatically the default for a sub.

 

Winston

[1eyedjack]

What are the first words out of one's mouth when sitting down with a new pard?  What system, pard?  It's universal.

I can only say that it is not universal, because I have playing in many events both in tourneys and the main area where I have been present as opponent when a sub arrives and there is no discussion. Indeed there is generally a considerable amount of time pressure in tourneys because the table will already be behind when the decision to sub is made. Not infrequently it is not until 3-4 boards into the substitution that they start to discuss.

And the real oddity is that these "undiscussed" explanations seem to come not with a standardized action but with an unusual action.

Let us take a moment to consider what unusual action has been taken here, and what damage has resulted.

On the first hand sub opened a weak 2. His partner guessed it was a weak 2 and bid the same contract as the rest of the room. He did well to guess it because there was a reasonable chance that the sub had read the CC posted with previous partner. Did it affect your bidding or opening lead? (after the opening lead the opening bidder is dummy and at that point the position is exposed.) I reckon it is unlikely. Complaining in situations like this smacks of trying to get a double shot.

 

The second hand is more of a problem, whether the psyche was fielded. Without the double, it would have been, I think. But a double in direct seat of a 2N opener is rather a strange occurrence. Assuming that it does not expose the psyche, it still places responder in a difficult position: If Diamonds are running then to pull it to 3D reckons to be a losing option (although he may feel a bit sick if he does not pull it but doubler's partner pulls to 3M and he has lost the opportunity to mention the Diamonds). But if the Diamonds are not running, or if Doubler has a running suit against 2N, then pulling it is the right move. Probably odds against but not a bizarre action. Then again, opponents might have had a misunderstanding about whether transfers remained on after the double (assuming transfers are in force at all), and with the actual hand as psyched it must be tempting to continue with 3H if he reads it as a transfer. A bit unfortunate that you did not wait to see how the auction panned out before calling the TD, or even waiting till hand end - you may well have got more than an A+.

 

I'd be interested to know whether readers think that responder is entitled to consider that opener may have psyched (I think it fair to assume that 2nd hand has not psyched a double). If he is so entitled, that is a third option that makes pulling to 3D a winning and legitimate move.

 

If the pair had a history, then there may have been some justification for the action taken by the TD, and as I said earlier there may be additional facts not mentioned in this thread. But if the facts stated are complete, and *IF* the TD judged that there was an infraction as a question of fact (ie that "no agreement" was a factually incomplete statement) then the question remains whether permanent expulsion is an appropriate remedy. That is down to club policy, but if all transgressions of like severity are consistently dealt with in the same manner then it seems to me that the club will end up with not many members is pretty short order.

[Chamaco]

Undiscussed or no agreement is simply a method of attempting to deceive - the player has to know what he believed his own bid meant.  If he knows what he thinks his own bid means, the opponents are entitled to this information as well.

 

Nonsense. The opponents are only entitled to know as much as your partner knows. If nothing similar has ever come up in your partnership, "undiscussed" is a perfectly valid answer. Only when you have reason to believe that your partner will understand you do you have to explain, e.g. "undiscussed but we've both read Robson/Segal so he'll probably take it as a FNJ".

Ditto.

 

The main point here is that *it is indeed possible* that this pair cheated, since there were some suspect facts.

 

But I *strongly* advocate that "undiscussed" is a pretty much acceptable explanation if the sequence was not discussed.