[jillybean]

chatlog said:

player: opps did not alert 1!c with short
jilly: 1!c is usually short?
player: with 2 it is alertable
jilly: please play and I will look at the board when finished, which #?
player: it is an alertable bid director
jilly: ok, I will look at it after the board is finished
player: ask another expert please
jilly: Im not denying that you are right and it should be alerted,,,please tell me which board?
player: board 8
jilly: ok I will look at it when I can
(later)
jilly: how were you damaged?
player: damaged by them not alerting it is a 1 trick penalty anywhere
player: opps have appologised it is a 1 trick penalty
jilly: failure to alert does not equate to damage, 1 trick penalty is not in the laws of duplicate contract bridge, it is something someone on bbo dreamt up
player: it is i have played at the highest level if you dont know ask someone
player: ask north he is a star player
jilly: the highest level where?  how were you damaged?
player: i played on my night 13 grandmasters 3 newzealand reps 600 in my club
jilly: what is the damage?
player: it is not worth the hassle if you dont know the rules i wont argue with you
jilly: show me the rules please
player exited bbo

This is a conversation I had with a player in my tournament, often players believe this and other ‘rules’ to be the truth. BBO have an extensive online help directory but nowhere can I find a link to the rules of duplicate contract bridge.

I think it would be very helpful to have such a link. Players may stumble across it and read a little and
TD’s could direct players to it

[blackshoe]

http://www.math.aau....ws97e/laws97nj/

[BebopKid]

That is a great idea, Jilly.

[jtfanclub]

Also

http://web2.acbl.org/laws/index.html

I like the index for this, easy hot links.

[Cascade]

jillybean2, on Jul 26 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

chatlog said:

player: opps did not alert 1!c with short
jilly: 1!c is usually short?
player: with 2 it is alertable
jilly: please play and I will look at the board when finished, which #?
player: it is an alertable bid director
jilly: ok, I will look at it after the board is finished
player: ask another expert please
jilly: Im not denying that you are right and it should be alerted,,,please tell me which board?
player: board 8
jilly: ok I will look at it when I can
(later)
jilly: how were you damaged?
player: damaged by them not alerting it is a 1 trick penalty anywhere
player: opps have appologised it is a 1 trick penalty
jilly: failure to alert does not equate to damage, 1 trick penalty is not in the laws of duplicate contract bridge, it is something someone on bbo dreamt up
player: it is i have played at the highest level if you dont know ask someone
player: ask north he is a star player
jilly: the highest level where?  how were you damaged?
player: i played on my night 13 grandmasters 3 newzealand reps 600 in my club
jilly: what is the damage?
player: it is not worth the hassle if you dont know the rules i wont argue with you
jilly: show me the rules please
player exited bbo

This is a conversation I had with a player in my tournament, often players believe this and other ‘rules’ to be the truth. BBO have an extensive online help directory but nowhere can I find a link to the rules of duplicate contract bridge.

I think it would be very helpful to have such a link. Players may stumble across it and read a little and
TD’s could direct players to it

It sounds like this person was at least claiming they were from New Zealand.

I've heard of plenty of bad rulings here but nothing like this!!!

But I know from my experience of directing online that it is not just New Zealanders that want something for nothing in these situations. I have had many players wanting an automatic adjustment when there has been failure to alert when they have not been damaged at all.

I'm all for resolving any doubt in the non-offending side's favour but completely against giving them something when they have not been damaged.

[helene_t]

I've even seen TDs anouncing such rules. Maybe they think it makes life easier since they don't have to judge wether there was damage or not. OTOH since the average pick-up pair on BBO make something like 0.5-1 cases of misinformation per board (most of them in the category of explaining the implicit agreement they think they have when correct explanation would be "no agreement") the TD must be very bussy when directing such a tourney.

[mycroft]

1) What to Alert and what not to Alert (and how to Alert, and even whether to Alert or whether you can ask the opponents not to Alert) is up to the Sponsoring Organization (Law 40B). For your BBO tournaments, the Sponsoring Organization is *you*. If you choose to require short clubs to be Alerted, fine. If you choose not to so require, that is *also fine*. If you choose to follow ACBL alerting, EBU alerting, NZBSA alerting, PBL alerting, or something homegrown, fine.

2) There is no fixed penalty in the Laws for failing to "disclose[] the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." That is also up to the Sponsoring Organization, under Law 80E or F. If you wish to provide a revoke-like punishment for misinformation, fine - but be prepared for 3S-10, and to be called *a lot*. Also be prepared for a very unfriendly game, as players try for those extra tricks on every little potential mis-Alert.

Most jurisdictions do not provide a penalty for mis-Alerting or mis-explaining, except in *very* high-level tournaments. Of course, if the misexplanation causes damage, that damage is dealt with under Law 40C.

3) Behaviour like that deserves its own penalty. Not following the director's request to "shut up and play" should get one, repeat *one* warning. The answer to "it's in the Laws" is, as you say, "show me." Law 90B8, Law 74B5.

Michael.

[TimG]

mycroft, on Jul 26 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

2) There is no fixed penalty in the Laws for failing to "disclose[] the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization." That is also up to the Sponsoring Organization, under Law 80E or F. If you wish to provide a revoke-like punishment for misinformation, fine - but be prepared for 3S-10, and to be called *a lot*. Also be prepared for a very unfriendly game, as players try for those extra tricks on every little potential mis-Alert.

Bobby Wolff used to (and maybe still does) advocate for a penalty in the case of convention disruption (CD).

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: The statements that you made to the player who was complaining were correct. There is nothing in the Laws of Bridge that requires a one trick penalty for a failure to alert. For that matter, there is nothing in the laws that requires that a short club needs to be alerted. Furthermore, as you note: The Laws are (generally) designed to restore equity and not to punish bad behavior.

Comment 2: Unfortunately, Online Bridge is still going through some major growing pains. Ultimately, the only way to avoid these sorts of problems to wait until well established Sponsoring Authorities emrge which are able to offer consistent rulings based on a well known regulatory structure. I’m not sure when these Sponsoring Authorities are going to spring forth. I suspect that the ACBL will eventually get the act together and serve as one. Once upon a time, I thought that Abalucy might have a chance. In all honesty, I think that the single best program that I’ve yet seen was the “HomeBase” club that Ben was trying to get off the ground. I think that he offered the best mix of technical features (hand records, analysis, etc.) and quality directors.

Every once in a while I wonder whether it might be worth while to throw a hat into the ring. I think that there is a real opportunity in offering KO matches on BBO. The existing Team leagues are nice, but it would be interesting to see some events running a single day format. It might be fun to try to get 16 teams together for a four round event some Saturday afternoon. (Maybe strech things across a couple days. 2x24 board rounds on Saturday. 2x36 board rounds on Sunday)

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jul 26 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

Bobby Wolff used to (and maybe still does) advocate for a penalty in the case of convention disruption (CD).

All due respect to Mr. Wolff, but his crusade against "convention disruption", while it may be appropriate for top level tournaments, is at best misguided for the vast majority of duplicate bridge games.

[ralph23]

Not only was this player asking for relief an idiot, he was an arrogant and insulting one who thought he could get something for nothing by trying to intimidate you with his "expertise". .

Maybe in some games that this "expert" plays in, you receive an automatic penalty for a no-harm failure-to-alert, but that certainly goes against the spirit of the Laws, which state that their primary purpose is not to inflict punishment for misdeeds, but to restore equity.

For what it's worth, guys like this wouldn't look bother to at the Laws, and even if they did, they would still believe that they (and not the Laws) were right.