[EricK]

Free, on Aug 8 2004, 08:38 PM, said:

First of all, we always prealert that we use a strong ♣ system with transfer openings in 1st & 2nd hand, and 2-suited preempts.  Normally everybody should prealert, but I can count the times my opps told me what they are playing on 1 hand.

About these rules, everyone who understands english knows how to interpret these rules.  If they're not clear, I'm happy to help:

a ) A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted For an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities
In plain english: you can't have a partnership agreement which tells you to pass with 13 or more HCP.  (however you can psych pass with such hands, but that's another rule)

b ) By parntership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass
Here I don't see any confusion possible...

c ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below avarage strength
For an opening bid of one, you need at least 8HCP, since 7 is a "King" (3) below "avarage" (10).

d ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length or shortage in a specified suit
If you open 1X, it shows a suit which is either long or short.  Example, you use the 1♥ opening as either 5+♠s or 0-1♠s, so no 2, 3 or 4♠s.  ♠ is the "specified suit".  5+ is "length", 0-1 is the "shortage".

e ) By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows either length in one specified suit or length in another
If you open 1X, it shows one of at least 2 suits.  Example, you use the 1♦ opening as 5+♥ or 5+♠.  "one specified suit" is ♥, "another" is ♠.

Statement ( B ) is an interesting one.

A lot of people treat major suits differently to minor suits, so that a minimum 1S/1H opening will be weaker than a minimum 1C/D opening with the same general hand shape. So they might open 1S with 5/5 in the majors and about 10 HCP, but would pass if their suits were the minors etc.

Does this mean that are playing a HUM?

Eric

[hrothgar]

I'm still trying to understand what was meant by this quote:

epeeist, on Aug 8 2004, 10:51 PM, said:

So let's say someone uses a 2♦ bid as meaning...[etc.] that bid alone is fine. But as TD, if you mistakenly infer that these bids mean that, in that pair's system, some 1-level bids and/or passes have meanings which qualify the system as highly unusual, then they're using a HUM, even if the particular bid made is unobjectionable.

The fact that a Director makes a mistake does not mean that a system is a HUM. It means that the Director made a mistake. More over, its probably a mistake to use the word "unusual" in a discussion regarding the formal expression HUM. Here in the US, Acol is a highly "unusual" method, but its in no way shape or form a HUM.

Regardless, it might be worth looking at what actually occured in the event in question.

---

Free opened 1♠ in 4th seat. Systemically, this promises an unbalanced hand with 4+ Diamonds and approximately 9-14 HCP. RHO overcalled 2♣, and I chose to bid 6♦. While this was an aggressive bid, it seemed reasonable. RHO's Club honors sure weren't pulling any weight and missing honors were placed nicely.

This floated back to RHO who doubled. 6♦X came home without a problem. Before going any further, I'll note

1. That the system being used and the transfer opening bids were pre-alerted.
2. A valid convention card was posted
3. The 1♠ opening was alerted as an artificial bid showing 4+ Diamonds.

From my perspective

(A) RHO made a highly speculative double [RHO has no defensive strength outside Clubs and really shouldn't expect these "values" to pull and weight]
(B) The opps decided to go an whine to the Director when their double backfired

The Director then asked me how I had known to bid 6♦ over 1 Spade. I informed him that 1♠ was an artificial bid showing 4+ Diamonds.

The Director responded by announcing to the entire Tournament that "Free and Hrothgar aren't welcome here" and then booted us from the event.

Since this point in time, the Director has refused to respond any questions/comments from me on this manner. [For what its worth, I feel that my questions have been remarkably polite given what happened]

In any case, in my experience, most pairs planning "unusual" systems have a very good understandings regarding whether their system is permitted or not under different regulatory regimes. Its a natural defense mechanism given the these types of problems.

In any case, as I've noted before: I have no problem if Director's or Clubs want to run restricted events. However, I have a big problem with them changing the rules in midevent. Moreover, I don't consider the fact that the Director doesn't happen to know the rules to be a very good excuse.

[DrTodd13]

Please let me know the name of this director so I can avoid them if I'm already not doing so!!!

Todd

[inquiry]

DrTodd13, on Aug 9 2004, 01:08 PM, said:

Please let me know the name of this director so I can avoid them if I'm already not doing so!!!

Todd

Please do not respond to Dr. Todd in public. If you want to tell him the name of the director in private that is fine.

Richard, did you report the public announcement to the entire tournment that "free and hgorthar aren't welcome here". Such an announcement, particularily without explaination is EXTREMELY prejudical against you and your parnter and, in fact, probably violates rules of the BBO. Sure, he has the right to kick you out of his event (it is his event), and to ban you from future ones (as if you WOULD WANT to play in his every again... lol), but he has no right to publically ridicule you there.

Humiliating people on BBO, like on BBF, is simply not to be allowed. I will report your acusations to abuse mysefl, but be sure to report them too.

Ben

[Free]

I made report to abuse, but all I got was a response making fun over the fact that he meant "hum" instead of "HUM", the avoiding argument of "it's probably a misunderstanding", and that the TD said he didn't see any alerts. Is he blind? Anyway, I don't have the impression abuse did ANYTHING to avoid such disasters in the future.

I didn't notice he said that to the entire tournament, but it could well be the case...

[inquiry]

Free, on Aug 9 2004, 01:43 PM, said:

I made report to abuse, but all I got was a response making fun over the fact that he meant "hum" instead of "HUM", the avoiding argument of "it's probably a misunderstanding", and that the TD said he didn't see any alerts. Is he blind? Anyway, I don't have the impression abuse did ANYTHING to avoid such disasters in the future.

I didn't notice he said that to the entire tournament, but it could well be the case...

These are apples and oranges situation.

The TD gets to decide how to run his tournments. He can make it SAYC only (like McBruce does), they can limit you to one psyche (like Abalucy is doing), or no psyches at all, or psyches only in third seat. And he can define what HUM means to him. I think it is entirely approriate for abuse to stay out of those issues.

And the TD can tell YOU that you are not welcome, and he can (if he wants), tell you why you are not welcome, or he can simply mark you as enemy and let you guess. That is his right.

What he can not due is hold you up for public ridicule and abuse. He can say to you that your are not welcome in his tournments, he can not announce to the entire tourment that "you" by name are not welcome. This has to be a violation of the rules of the site.

I would like to think the director also has to be moderately polite to everyone, but his might be too high a standard... as directors take an incredible amount of abuse, and feel the need to let go occassionally. So they don't have to be polite in telling you to get out, but they surely have no more rights to violate teh rules of the site than anyone else... You should be sanctioned if you go on the BBO and shout to this fellows tournment that he is a horrible director and an idiot, and he should be sanctioned if he does essentially the same thing to you (announcing to one and all that you are not welcome)... he can ban you without that public ridicule.

So, I think your original complaint to abuse would, and should, fall pretty much on deaf ears the way you presented it. Richards report, if true, deserves an evaluatio by abuse to see if rules of the site were violated. I think both yellows and TD should be held to the same standards as other members on our sites.

Ben

[Free]

inquiry, on Aug 9 2004, 06:59 PM, said:

So, I think your original complaint to abuse would, and should, fall pretty much on deaf ears the way you presented it. Richards report, if true, deserves an evaluatio by abuse to see if rules of the site were violated.

The way Richard presented it here is similar to the way I reported to abuse. I even gave them the .lin file (or what is it) of the hand, where you can clearly see I alerted and my explanation... The only thing I didn't mention was that the TD talked to the entire tournament about us, since I didn't notice it.

So if my complaint should "fall on deaf ears", then it would actually mean TD's can ruin people's fun in a tourney by kicking them for no reason. This would mean that whenever a TD would feel the need to kick someone, he can kick anyone he wants, and the complaint wouldn't be heard. I hope you don't mean what you wrote here, otherwise I'd be VERY disapointed, even more than I am at this moment.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Aug 9 2004, 08:59 PM, said:

The TD gets to decide how to run his tournments. He can make it SAYC only (like McBruce does), they can limit you to one psyche (like Abalucy is doing), or no psyches at all, or psyches only in third seat. And he can define what HUM means to him. I think it is entirely approriate for abuse to stay out of those issues.

So, I can run a SAYC only tournament, but throw individuals out because they are playing Jacoby 2NT? This suggestion seems unworkable...

I agree completely that Director's should be able to run whatever type of tournament they want. However, I fnd it highly problematic if they

(A) Arbitrarily re-define standard vocabulary
(B) Change the Conditions of Contest mid-event

For what its worth, I have no interest in seeing the "Abuse" structure dragged into this.

[JRG]

Free, on Aug 8 2004, 09:04 AM, said:

epeeist, on Aug 7 2004, 07:29 PM, said:

~snip~
However, as the discussion in this thread shows, determining what is and isn't a HUM can be complicated, and for a TD on the spot to make a mistake given the limited time available within which to think and/or look up the relevant Laws  in the various texts he or she has handy   is certainly understandable.

What a load of ...! First of all, determining weither a system is a HUM or not is only 5 simple yes/no questions. Second, a TD isn't supposed to look up the rules, he's supposed to KNOW THE RULES - come on! Third, this silly argument of "no time enough" is also old news. If they make a mistake, it's because they didn't have time. I'm sick of this. I can understand there's not much time, but that's no reason at all to make unfounded decisions which you know might as well be wrong as right

Afterwards when someone complains about the decision-in-a-hurry, TD's always have the same old arguments: "no time" and "hey, we put our free time in it, so give us some credit" (meaning "we can do whatever we want). They just have their arguments ready, and they are never punished, and probably not even warned about their mistakes after a complaint to abuse!

Certainly a director is expected to know The Law; however, I think almost every director I've ever encountered at club games (and many at the few tournaments I've been to) carry the little "Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" with them and refer to it often. So I think it is appropriate for even experienced directors to double-check the laws.

Last Friday I directed my very first duplicate game. It was quite an experience. There is a lot to do that one tends to think of as having nothing to do with the Laws (though there ARE references to these things) -- such things as keeping the noise down, correcting scores when players enter scores on the wrong line of the travelller, moving the boards, keeping the game on time, etc.

I think referring to "the book" is a good idea. In the confusion at the table, it is easy to remember incorrectly (or in my case, incompletely) or apply the wrong law. The hardest thing I found was to get people to wait for the short time it took to look up a law (I knew one I'd got wrong and wanted to correct it while I was still at the table -- luckily it worked out and I didn't have to assign an "artificial adjusted score" because of my own blunder).

One thing that is especially interesting is that a book the chief tournament director (for my zone) lent me suggested that the director should be especially familiar with the laws concerning

- Call Out of Turn
- Insufficient Bid
- Dummy's Rights and Limitations
- Leads Out of Turn
- Revoke

as most of his rulings will relate to these. Only one of these (Dummy's Rights and Limitations) applies to online bridge!

[inquiry]

Well, I guess you will have to be disappointed.

Yes, I have seen the lin file, yes all your bids were alerted. YEs, the leap to 6♦ was totally justified on the system you were playing. All that is true. The TD "statement" , assuming he made one, that you did not alert your bids was false... and I ahve kibitzed you and richard enough to know your prealert by heart.. it goes like this...

"Hi All. MOSCITO = Strong Club and transfer openings (1!D = 4+ hearts, 1!H = 4+ Spades, 1!S = 4+ diamonds). Weak NT. .. 2 suited preempts. (2!D = Diamonds + major, 2!H = hearts and Black suit, 2!S = Spades OR Spades and Clubs)"

And after kibizing too many rounds to count, I have never, not once, seen you fail to make that alert at the beginning of a round (actually, Richard is the one who makes it, and it is always the same.. no doubt he has a tool to help with that).

The problem is this view you have...

Quote

TD's can ruin people's fun in a tourney by kicking them for no reason

In fact, TD's can do exactly that. They can mark anyone they want as an enemy and not even allow them into the tourment in the first place. And they can set their own rules as to what constitutes acceptable play. They can mandate only SAYC (as McBruce does), or only one psyche per tourney (as abalucy does), or no psyche or not first or second seat psyche, or no ACOL, or no polish club, etc. They set the rules, they decide whether people violate the rules, and they decide teh punishment. It is their "house", and they are judge, jury and executnor.

So can he ruin your fun by not allowing you to play in HIS tournment? You betcha. As a rule, the BBO nor abuse oversee how TD do their events. If a TD starts tournments and then leaves, he will be quickly stripped of his ability to run Tourneys. But as for the "rules of bridge" in his house, it is pretty much his rules.

But TD must follow the rules of the site, like everyone else. So what separates Richard's version from yours is a night a day issue. In yours, the TD told you that you were not welcome and booted you. That is his right. You were a guest in his house (tourment), and he doesn't want you there anymore. But in Richard's version, he told the entire city that you were not welcome in his house. This could be a grey area, but I would view this as a violation of the BBO rules as stated in the rules of the site. There is no need for the TD not attempt to humilaiate you or to ridicule you to all 50 or 60 other tables. He has the right to bar your entry and to forcably remove you, what he doesn't have a right too is to make a public pronouncement of this. At least not in my view (note I speak as inquiry the person, not a yellow.. henice I suggested richard forward this to abuse so they could rule on rahter or not a rule was violated).

Ben

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Aug 10 2004, 03:45 AM, said:

Free opened 1♠ in 4th seat.

4th seat? I think this was first seat.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on Aug 9 2004, 11:18 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 10 2004, 03:45 AM, said:

Free opened 1♠ in 4th seat.

4th seat? I think this was first seat.

was first seat. been a LONG weekend

[DrTodd13]

The conditions of contest are a contract between host and player. They should say what is permitted and what is disallowed. In the absence of the former, the assumption is that the codified laws of bridge apply. In my view, so long as a player is obeying the rules of the tourney as specified in the conditions of contest, the host has no right to kick him. If hosts want to retain such a right then they must specify it in the conditions of contest with something like "I reserve the right to kick anyone for any reason." Hosts can't expect people to know what they intend when they write the conditions of contest. All they can do is read what is written and in the absence of specific definitions then the predominant usage of the term should apply. For example, if a host says "highly unusual methods are disallowed" then we have at least two reasons to believe that this refers to the official definition of HUM by the WBF. First, the host has used words exactly matching something defined in the laws of bridge. Second, using those words in a generic sense (instead of the WBF definition) will surely lead to mayhem because something that is weird for one pair or country won't be for another. If a host wants to ban more than the WBF definition of HUM then he needs to create an expanded generic definition or outlaw conventions by name. If you intend to ban something and you let some other weird method slip through the cracks then that is your fault and a host should be sanctioned for kicking people mid-tourney who have followed his rules. The host needs to learn from this lesson and rectify his definition to ban what he wants to ban. IMHO, the biggest fault of man is his desire to lord himself over others and this can be seen from the numerous TD hosts who have quickly become tyrannical and dictatorial.

[epeeist]

[1eyedjack]

DrTodd13, on Aug 9 2004, 03:32 PM, said:

The conditions of contest are a contract between host and player.

This is a red herring in my view, but it does raise an interesting question.

I don't know anything about international law but I know a bit about contract law in the UK (excluding Scotland that has some peculiarities of its own). For there to be a contract there must be (in addition to other qualifying conditions) the payment of consideration. Some of the "pay" tourneys *might* bring about a contractual relationship under UK law, but if they did then the maximum remedy for its breach would be a return of the entry fee. The free tourneys would be wholly outside of any of the remedies of contract law, and when you join a tourney you simply take pot luck as regards how you are treated.

But even if it fell within the jurisdiction of UK law AND was a pay tourney that qualified as a contract under UK law the refund of the entry fee would hardly restore equity for the damage caused by blackening someone's name in public. That would constitute a tort of libel (or possibly slander), for which the system of remedies is entirely separate from those developed in common law under contract.

What I find of interest is the jurisdiction angle. Which national laws apply when a service is provided worldwide over the internet? If I (in the UK) hosted a tourney using BBO interface, and a player accused me of a breach of the Americans with Disabilities Act, would I be liable?

[TimG]

inquiry, on Aug 9 2004, 12:59 PM, said:

The TD gets to decide how to run his tournments. He can make it SAYC only (like McBruce does), they can limit you to one psyche (like Abalucy is doing), or no psyches at all, or psyches only in third seat. And he can define what HUM means to him. I think it is entirely approriate for abuse to stay out of those issues.

And the TD can tell YOU that you are not welcome, and he can (if he wants), tell you why you are not welcome, or he can simply mark you as enemy and let you guess. That is his right.

In this case, the conditions/restrictions where clearly listed in teh tournament description: no HUM. As has been discussed here, the methods hrothgar and free were playing are not HUM. The director should not change his mind mid-game and eject a pair for playing an unusual methods that is not a HUM. And, a director who includes in the description of his tournament "no HUM" ought to have taken the time to understand what qualifies as a HUM.

Actually, I spoke with the director after teh event (I happened to be kibitzing and want to clarify that I saw the explanation of 1♠ which contradicted his claim of no alert being made). The director referred me to a webpage with the 5 HUM test thing and said teh method was HUM. He was clearly not interpreting the criteria correctly. He just made a mistake, one that he was not willing to admit.

Tim

[DrTodd13]

1eyedjack, on Aug 9 2004, 09:15 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Aug 9 2004, 03:32 PM, said:

The conditions of contest are a contract between host and player.

This is a red herring in my view, but it does raise an interesting question.

I don't know anything about international law but I know a bit about contract law in the UK (excluding Scotland that has some peculiarities of its own). For there to be a contract there must be (in addition to other qualifying conditions) the payment of consideration. Some of the "pay" tourneys *might* bring about a contractual relationship under UK law, but if they did then the maximum remedy for its breach would be a return of the entry fee. The free tourneys would be wholly outside of any of the remedies of contract law, and when you join a tourney you simply take pot luck as regards how you are treated.

But even if it fell within the jurisdiction of UK law AND was a pay tourney that qualified as a contract under UK law the refund of the entry fee would hardly restore equity for the damage caused by blackening someone's name in public. That would constitute a tort of libel (or possibly slander), for which the system of remedies is entirely separate from those developed in common law under contract.

I was referring to contract in a more general sense. I wasn't saying that kicking someone from your tournament is a breach of a legal contract with the associated liability. I was using the term contract only with respect to the ethics of not abiding by your own conditiions of contest.

Todd

[keylime]

I'm with DrTodd on this. Tell me privately who they were. Avoid 'em like the plague.