[luke warm]

it was suggested that i ask this here... following is a copy of the post from the 'sayc, 2/1' forum (which has a few replies already)

this was the hand today, in a paid [ui] tourney..

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

Pass Pass 3♠ 4♥
4♠ 5♥ Pass Pass
Pass

ok, the director came to the table halfway thru and said he was adjusting the score to avg - for both pairs because east opened "an improper 3♠"

my question is, first of all, is that opening disallowed? secondly, what can a pair do about it when the opps open "improperly"? just take the 40% and be happy? ... oh, i was sitting south fwiw

thanks

[McBruce]

The Director is completely wrong here, and is making a serious error in judgment.

If 3♠ is an improper bid by the tourney conditions, then E-W are the offending side and N-S are the non-offenders. There is no Lawful or earthly reason for N-S to be handed average minus for doing nothing wrong.

I fail to see how 3♠ can be improper. It may not be a sound call, but it is certainly legal. Maybe if the partnership agreement is highly unusual (it shows a hand with five pairs and seven outside spots!? ) it may be deemed illegal because only a computer could understand it, but it certainly seems like a natural bid based on what followed.

Is it possible that East misclicked 3♠ for 2♠ and alerted the Director privately, and the Director decided that instead of 5♥ down one, probably about 10% for N-S, E-W should get 50% less for causing the problem and N-S should get 30% more for being innocent?

Of course, this is not a Laws-approved decision by the Director. Even if 3♠ is for some very strange reason outlawed, the correct ruling is to first attempt to work out a likely result, and if this is impossible, assign A+-, not A--.

[xx1943]

McBruce on Jul 5 2004 said:

The Director is completely wrong here, and is making a serious error in judgment.

100% agree

Quote

If 3♠ is an improper bid by the tourney conditions, then E-W are the offending side and N-S are the non-offenders.  There is no Lawful or earthly reason for N-S to be handed average minus for doing nothing wrong

100% agree

Quote

I fail to see how 3♠ can be improper.  It may not be a sound call, but it is certainly legal.

100% agree

Quote

Maybe if the partnership agreement is highly unusual (it shows a hand with five pairs and seven outside spots!?  ) it may be deemed illegal because only a computer could understand it, but it certainly seems like a natural bid based on what followed.

Disagree:
If there is a partnership agreement, East had to alert. He doesn't and should therefore by punished. Therefore adjust: A+-.

Quote

Is it possible that East misclicked 3♠ for 2♠ and alerted the Director privately, and the Director decided that instead of 5♥ down one, probably about 10% for N-S, E-W should get 50% less for causing the problem and N-S should get 30% more for being innocent?

disagree:
(1) If a misclick result in bad boards, why should it not result in a lucky one?
(2) Why punish EW for beeing honest and calling TD. If 3♠ isn't illegal why should it become illegal in case of an misclick?
(3) Decision in this case: PLay the board and don't adjust

Quote

Of course, this is not a Laws-approved decision by the Director.  Even if 3♠ is for some very strange reason outlawed, the correct ruling is to first attempt to work out a likely result, and if this is impossible, assign A+-, not A--.

100% agree
Al

[luke warm]

McBruce, on Jul 6 2004, 04:20 AM, said:

Is it possible that East misclicked 3♠ for 2♠ and alerted the Director privately, and the Director decided that instead of 5♥ down one, probably about 10% for N-S, E-W should get 50% less for causing the problem and N-S should get 30% more for being innocent?

i hadn't thought of that.. yes, that sounds likely since there's really no way the director should have even come to our table, out of the blue... even so, i don't think it's right to punish n/s no matter what the result might have been... either let them play or do whatever is correct

i'd like for the director in question, if possible, to tell me what happened here

[mink]

hi Luke,

I think the director maybe came to the table by chance or was called by private chat. Anyway, this is not relevant.

3♠ does not need an alert. In 3rd seat non-vul vs vul, the objective of bidding is just to disturbe opps. Anybody should know that. So the 3♠ bid with the east hand is completely natural: it is weak, and ♠ is the longest suit.

But even if one would think that an alert is needed, it would required that opps had agreed on that 3♠ might be such a shape. The director should have asked EW first if this is the case. If they told him that they are a pickup partnership and he has no reason to doubt that, he must not adjust. Even if they are an established partnership, I would believe them if they told me that they have never talked about preempting with a 2-suiter on level 3.

But even if a director believes that there might be an agreement that should have been alerted, this would not justify an adjustment: Wests 4♠ would be totally normal no matter if his partner has 5 or 7 ♠ cards. And he cannot be blamed for the final pass, too. And I doubt that South and North would bid anything else if they knew explicitly that 3♠ could be sometimes 5-5 with ♠. In neither case north can be sure that his partner is singleton or void in ♠, so 5♥ is always a risk, as maybe opps get the two tricks in ♠ at the start and then NS have to make all the rest.

If the directors oppinion is different to all reasoning above and he decides to adjust, he has to adjust to whatever he thinks would have happened if 3♠ was alerted and explained the way he thinks it should be done. Maybe he thinks that North would not have bid 5♥ on that information but rather double. Then he should evaluate what the likely results would be in 4♠ doubled and adjust to the one that is in favor for NS (I think -3). This would probably be still a bad result for NS as they have 4♥, but you cannot take the 4♠ bid away. The purpose of adjusting is never to punish the offender but to restore equity (hallo Al :-)).

Law 21B 3. states, "... the Director may award an adjusted score ..." if misinformation caused damage. Everywhere where ave+- or something like this is applicable, the laws use the term "artificial adjusted score". Therefore "adjusted score" here means that it should be a score that could have been reached by normal play. (Maybe a splitscore, but this is not implemented here.) Ave+- and the like are artificial.

If the director decides to ignore this and instead likes to award an artificial adjusted score, it must be ave+- of course. Ave-- is a joke.

My view of payed tourneys was that they would be directed by peoply who have a reasonalbe knowledge of the laws and are willing to use it. Knowing now that this is not guaranteed, I ask myself what "added value" is left for payed tourneys then?

Maybe BBO management should review the qualification of hosts who are allowed to run payed tourneys. Or are all allowed? This might have a negative effect on the reputation of payed tourneys as a whole. After all, players have no means to test a direcotors abillities prior to being involved in a non trivial case. And this occurs quite seldom, I normally do not experience director calls that are about something else than missing players when I play myself in tourney.

Karl

[xx1943]

Hi Karl

as most times you hit the target. You expressed exactly my opinions, which I couldn't do so, because of my bad English.

cheers

Al

I like all your posts