[cicus]

The other day playing in an IMP tournament I had this incident. After 1C-pass-1D my (regular) partner came in with 2S. As it turned out later, he alerted his call as being "weak". Actually he had a nice 11-count 6-4 hand.
The opponents made a foolish penalty double and misdefended as well, so we took 10 tricks. FYI, I had a 11-count with a spade void but a well-fitting hand otherwise.
We were asked by our opponents if we call this hand weak. My partner answered that no, but it is weak according to our agreement. Nevertheless the director was summoned and, presumably, told about the infraction. As I could see no conversation, it must have been in private chat. Without asking a question, he adjusted the board as average- for us. The 15 IMP's we lost this way would have been enough to win the tournament.

Somehow I feel that not only the ruling but also the procedure let something to be desired. But I'm not a TD and BBO has its own specialities, so I may be mistaken. Some guidance here wooul be appreciated.

Gábor

[mr1303]

Dreadful, hopeless director ruling, completely illegal.

Again.

As I understand it, your partner made a heavy weak jump overcall, perfectly reasonably given that both opponents had bid and you couldn't do anything over 1C, opponents made a bad decision to double for penalty, tried crying to the director about it, who for some unknown reason ruled in their favour.

To be more specific, once a result has been obtained on a board (and it clearly was here) then any combination of averages cannot be given.

Secondly, is the 2S bid allowed? Of course, you can bid whatever you like.

Did you mis-inform your opponents? No, your opponents are entitled to know your agreements, not what is in your hand. The partnership agreement is that 2S showed a weak hand with a long spade suit, and although the hand was slightly stronger than expected, it is the right of the 2S bidder to have a better hand than the partnership might expect.

If I were you I'd blacklist the TD and never play in his tournaments again.

I won't comment on the possibility of private chat, since there is no proof of that.

[jillybean]

The TD made an incorrect ruling and adjustment and just as bad, didn’t involve everyone in the discussion & decision. The opps are entitled to know about your partnership agreements, not what you have in your hand. Your partners explanation was correct.

Send the TD a link to the forums

jb

[Echognome]

As you described the events, this is a horrible ruling. For once a clearcut case of an illegal ruling.

[luis]

As described (note I say as described) this is a candidate for worst ruling of the year.
If your agreement is that 2♠ is weak your pd has the right to bid it with 0 or 12 or 13 if he likes it and alert as "weak", the fact that you passed with 11hcp is a clear demonstration that you took the bid as weak so there is no base for missinformation. Furthermore they made a non-bridge penalty double so even when there was an infraction (there wasn't) an infraction does not give you the right to stop playing bridge and claim redress.

It's normal expert practice to bid a weak hand with opening values from time to time, specially when pd is a passed hand. After pass - pass many experts might open 2♠ with 0 or 12 or 10. My personal record is 16 :-) I once opened a weak 2 in third with 16 and declarer landed in 3♠ down 3 including a bad claim "he can't have the club King so blah blah" I think he is still in shock and that was last year.

Luis

[cicus]

luis, on Feb 1 2006, 10:31 AM, said:

As described (note I say as described) this is a candidate for worst ruling of the year.
If your agreement is that 2♠ is weak your pd has the right to bid it with 0 or 12 or 13 if he likes it and alert as "weak", the fact that you passed with 11hcp is a clear demonstration that you took the bid as weak so there is no base for missinformation. Furthermore they made a non-bridge penalty double so even when there was an infraction (there wasn't) an infraction does not give you the right to stop playing bridge and claim redress.

It's normal expert practice to bid a weak hand with opening values from time to time, specially when pd is a passed hand. After pass - pass many experts might open 2♠ with 0 or 12 or 10. My personal record is 16 :-) I once opened a weak 2 in third with 16 and declarer landed in 3♠ down 3 including a bad claim "he can't have the club King so blah blah" I think he is still in shock and that was last year.

Luis

I have found the hand in the archive. I misinformed you previously, I had only 9 HCP. Here is the link:

http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/fetch...php?id=37790898

[inquiry]

Bad ruling. As far as I can tell, this is close to the BBO position on directors.

1) For ACBL tourneys, where BBO owns the franchise, certified directors are used. You should get fair and sound rulings in these events. I say should, becasue everyone is human, and mistakes happen.

2) For other pay tourneys, BBO is careful about who they pick to run them, and these people either direct themselves or find helpers. IT is in the BEST INTEREST of these pay-tourneys to have as professional and polite (friendly?) directors as they can find. If a pay tourney director made this ruling, you should contact the host (the name that set the tourney up) and tell them. They should re-educate or remove that director. The BBO leaves these decisions up the the individual host... for a lot of reasons.

3) For Free tourneys, the BBO grants rights to people to host free tourneys. And they remove these rights primarily if the person is causing problems, such as being extremely rude to players, scheduling tourneys and not showing up, booting so many players that the yellow and staff get way too many complaints that have to be dealt with, etc. The quality of the ruling (or even if they will make rulings at all) is not an issue. IF you don't like a director, simply don't play in their events. By having FREE events (and lots of them), it helps all of BBO (Some pay directors might disagree, but it really does help all.. the more players and chances to play on line the better).

[reisig]

I don't agree "worst ruling of the year"....I've seen worse...but clearly is in the running for that "award"

[pigpenz]

inquiry, on Feb 1 2006, 11:41 AM, said:

Bad ruling. As far as I can tell, this is close to the BBO position on directors.

1) For ACBL tourneys, where BBO owns the franchise, certified directors are used. You should get fair and sound rulings in these events. I say should, becasue everyone is human, and mistakes happen.

.

[Gerben42]

Directing online is different from offline. Directors that are not very much aware of this will have problems. Maybe this is one of the troublespots?

BTW I plead guilty too... Yesterday I opened 2♠ on a 13-count at unfavourable 3rd seat as well... Needless to say, opponents first overbid and went down one extra because I couldn't have what I had