[PassedOut]

I play a regular game with a frail old lady who loves to play bridge when she is not in the hospital. Computers give her problems, but she can point and click pretty well. She sent me her system notes, and I play it just the way she specified it.

Because she has a hard time typing in alerts, I thought the FD card would be perfect for us. I spent the time to create a card with her system so that the opponents can see what all our bids mean. (I also type in alerts manually just to make sure, but she often can not.) However, all the explanations appear on the screen in the upper right corner, and the opponents can highlight the meanings at any time even when the auction is over.

Tonight, we played the 11PM (EDT) ACBL Speedball MP tournament, and my partner opened with a mini-Roman 2♦ (I know, I know), and the explanation duly appeared. I had a good hand with 1=4=6=2 shape, and bid 2NT asking for her singleton. I alerted this manually as "artificial for singleton" and that was the explanation that appeared also in the FD area.

Partner bid 3♦, and the description showed up on the screen as 4=4=1=4 distribution. I bid 4♥, and made an overtrick for a good board.

After the next round started, a message appeared on my screen from director an ACBL director saying that the board had been adjusted to average minus (40%) for us. The director then told me that the adjustment was because my partner had opened a multi 2♦, which was not allowed. I explained the situation (we definitely do not play multi), but the adjustment was made before the director talked to me, and that was that.

I'm wondering whether the directors can tell whether or not an FD card is in use, and what further disclosures my partner is required to make beyond what appears to everyone on the screen.

I hate to tell her that we can't play.

[fred]

If the TD is at your table, he/she can see your convention card (just like any other kibitzer). If the TD is not at your table, there is currently no way for him/her to see your convention card.

Giving the TD the ability to do this might be smart. I will think about this and discuss with Uday.

TDs do have the ability to look at the boards that have been played by any of the pairs. If the TD is using the web-client, the record of played boards will include alert info, but even without this I would have hoped that looking at the board in question would be sufficient for the TD to see that you were not playing multi.

It is normal for a TD to examine a board before adjusting a score, but I could imagine a scenario in which a TD is suddenly overwhelmed by calls and is willing to take the word of the person who called the TD that multi had been used. Even in the absense of that, even the best TDs make mistakes or questionable rulings on occasion.

I do have good reason to believe that by and large our ACBL TDs do excellent work. I suspect that incidents like this one are few and far between - sorry that you were unlucky and this happened to you.

I am surprised that the TD did not correct the mistake once you explained what had happened. I will make sure the person in charge of our ACBL program knows about this incident.

In the future, if do not like the way one of our ACBL TDs handled a given situation, you should e-mail acbl@bridgebase.com - there is no guarantee that a member of our staff will notice a forums thread that should be brought to our attention.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[PassedOut]

Thanks, Fred.

I understand that tournament directors can make mistakes and I have no complaints in that regard. BBO is great and I have only positive feelings about my experiences. I'm more interested in making sure that we do the right thing ourselves.

I had thought that the fact that the FD card gives clear information about our agreements overrode the need for partner to duplicate that information manually, making it much easier and more comfortable for her to play on BBO. I know that she has corresponded with Uday in the past and definitely gained that impression herself.

If we do something amiss (or if the director decides so), I think it appropriate for our score to be adjusted downward. What I do wonder about is the appropriateness of our opponents getting a matching adjustment upward, considering that their scores are compared with the other half of the field.

On this deal, the normal contract was 4♥. Pairs who made an overtrick got 75% and those who made it on the nose got 50%. At our table, the overtrick was not given up by the opening lead, but by later play after the dummy was in view. The upshot is that the adjustment turned a 25% score by our opponents into a 60% score, while all of the pairs they competed against had to keep their scores.

I wonder if adjustments that penalize one pair (us) for an infraction that does not directly damage the opponents should result in a corresponding positive adjustment the other way. Seems a bit unfair to the other half of the field.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on Jun 2 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

I wonder if adjustments that penalize one pair (us) for an infraction that does not directly damage the opponents should result in a corresponding positive adjustment the other way. Seems a bit unfair to the other half of the field.

Yes but the software does not (correct me someone if I am wrong) support splitscores and procedural penalties, so the director has to adjust the board if s/he thinks someone play an illegal convention.

[Lanor Fow]

Even in a case with split scores and procedural penalties, in some jurisdictions it is advised procedure to give ave+, ave- scores in cases of illigal conventions.

The EBU gives that advice, for the reason that the possibilities of what would have happened had the convention not been in use are 'numerous or not obvious' (law 12C1D). With artificially adjusted scores, if a pair is not at all at fault for the irregularity then they are assigned ave+.


Whether they should keep there score, having made some error later (which i think is passedouts point) is to do with the error. If the action is deemed 'wild or gambling' then the non-offending side will keep their score, whilst the offending side would receive the adjusted score. (please note i'm not trying to imply there was any irregularity in the OPs post, just what would happen if there was).

[helene_t]

Right, in the case of someone using an illegal convention it is probably correct to adjust to ave-/ave+

[Oof Arted]

helene_t, on Jun 3 2009, 06:27 AM, said:

Right, in the case of someone using an illegal convention it is probably correct to adjust to ave-/ave+

technically EBU would award 60/30 in this case

i.e. 60/40 with a 10% procedural penalty

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure what the EBU reg actually says right now, but decreasing the size of the adjusted score as a penalty measure is anathema to me. Award the appropriate adjusted score per the laws, and then give a PP in addition - and make it clear what you're doing, and why.

[Oof Arted]

blackshoe, on Jun 18 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

I'm not sure what the EBU reg actually says right now, but decreasing the size of the adjusted score as a penalty measure is anathema to me. Award the appropriate adjusted score per the laws, and then give a PP in addition - and make it clear what you're doing, and why.

Blackshoe

perhaps my answer was too simplistic

The ruling is 60/40

But it is decreased to 30% with the adition of a 10% procedural penalty

[bluejak]

No, it is not. The EBU gives Ave+/Ave- [often referred to as 60/40] for using an illegal system.

Ave+/Ave- and a standard procedural penalty [often referred to as 60/30] is only for a fielded psyche.