BBO Discussion Forums: A Question - BBO Discussion Forums

In a recent tournament here a pair reached a suit grand slam. En route to it,one of them bid 4NT I asked for an explanation and got
the reply "No information available" I looked at the players systems card No info. I then sent a PM via chat to the player asking for clarification. No response Of course I knew the bid
was Blackwood but which one? Simple or RKC? When no reply was forthcoming I summoned the TD and gave the reason. I got no response from him either!! The board was played and the vulnerable grand slam made scoring +2220 When I sent a message of complaint to the TD it developed into an online quarrel which resulted in me being blacklisted.

My gripe is this,should a player be allowed to use a convention that does not show on their systems card?. That's the whole purpose of these cards;to give as much information about a
pair's bidding system,conventions,agreements,carding methods etc. I honestly feel I got a raw deal over this matter. I also dont think that certain TDs on this site should not be TDs.as they should be able to deal with any situation which arises at the table.
A Tournament Director is like a referee. As such they should have a perfect knowledge of the rules and procedures. In this case, the Laws of Bridge. In a real time game,when a dispute arises at a table,the TD is summoned and,taking a copy of the Laws with him,he heads towards the table in question. After hearing both sides of the dispute,the TD looks up the relevant Law and reads it out aloud. If this does not satisfy both sides,the matter goes to appeal to a card committee for arbitration. This doesn't happen here for some unknown reason.
So I have two questions
1) Is a player allowed to use conventions that are not on his/her systems card?
2) Is a TDs ruling(or lack of it in my case) final or can it be appealed and,if so how does one go about it?
I await any replies with interest.

PhilG007, on 2019-September-20, 08:00, said:

1) Many players don't even have convention cards, especially if it's a pick-up partnership. You're apparently talking about an online tourney, and these partnerships are often formed at the very last minute, so there's no time to fill out a CC, and the extent of discussion is typically something like "My profile OK, pd?" "Sure, except standard carding".

The Laws say that you're required to disclose your agreements to the opponents. It doesn't say that you can't have agreements that aren't on the card, but if you don't disclose them properly you're guilty of misinformation. If the MI actually damages the opponents, the score can be adjusted.

2) TD rulings on point of law can't be overruled by an appeals committee, but judgement calls can be.

Are you asking what the appeals process is on BBO? It depends on who is running the tournament. If it's an ACBL tourney, write to acbl@bridgebase.com. If it's a free tourney run by a random user, I wouldn't expect much of a formal process.

Disclosure-rules are contentious and vary according to local regulations and conditions of contest. A pair is expected to have 2 complete and identical system-cards but that rule is rarely enforced on-line or off-line. When asked you should divulge agreements (explicit and implicit). When you have no clear understanding, then you should say so, but you should supply relevant inferences. For example, similar auctions about which you do have an agreement. You should not guess, however. In particular, you should avoid saying "I take it as ...."

Hence, if PhilG007's opponents are a pick-up partnership, then they appear to have behaved reasonably and the director seems to have ruled correctly.

Current disclosure rules seem flawed, however. They need unification, simplification and clarification. For example, IMO...

• Disclosure rules should be the same everywhere and be rigorously enforced.
• For legal purposes, your system-card should define your 'agreements'.
• Cards for common basic systems and standardized conventions should be available on-line.
• A pair should complete their own cards or adopt/amend standard cards that reflect their understandings.

More controversially, IMO...

• Face-to-face, you should immediately announce the meaning of partner's call (just as on-line). There would be no need to alert calls or to ask about opponents' calls.
• Face-to-face, a sheet would be allocated to each table, containing a matrix of common explanations (e.g. "12-14", "GF", "UCB", "4SFG", etc). Often, you would be able to point to relevant explanations, rather than need to disturb neighboring tables.
• You would be able to "turn-off" of opponents' explanations, when you feel that they might help them more than you.
• In any case, at the end of the auction, the declaring side should volunteer an explanation of the auction.
• As well as an explanation of each individual call, you would be entitled to the answer to the question "In the light of partner's calls, what is his likely strength and shape?"
• "Style", " 'Psyching' propensities", and "Tactical agreements" should be disclosed. Examples: "Partner is prone to insane pre-empts", "Partner likes to make 'comic' 1N overcalls", "When we're losing a match by a lot, we overbid and our other pair underbid".

nige1, on 2019-September-20, 09:41, said:

I fully agree with this. A corollary is that in absence of a system card or a list of amendments to a standard card a pair should be assumed to follow a standard card imposed by the RA or tournament organiser ("Standard American", SEF or whatever). In Turkey for instance this is the national regulation.