[olegru]

How often do you bid a contract that cannot be made against the best defense? For me it happens very often. Fortunately for me, the best defense is not that common in ACBL speedballs, so majority of impossible contracts are ends up successfully. This is maybe not a good bridge, but it is life. If a player has an opportunity to make a mistake, sometimes he/she will make it. Problem, however, that in speedballs players sometimes does not have an opportunity to mistake. All what they need is just to play slow and let time for a round to expired before critical decision made. (I am not saying that they do it by purpose, but result is the same.) It does not feel right when opponents take the lion’s share of the time for a round and after time expired rewarded by double-dummy defense.

Just for illustration, look at this traveler:
http://www.bridgebas...username=olegru

We got in bad 3NT contract that booked to go down after ♥K lead. Opponents played slowly and time for the round expired after move 3. Declarer had only 8 top tricks, ♥ is open and after taking ♠Ace defenders could take 5 tricks. Easy to assign the result?

Let us make a closer look at the traveler. There were 6 other tables ending up in the same 3NT contract. Five of them got the same ♥King lead. What were the results? Down one on the two tables, made on one table, made with overtrick on one table and made with 3 overtricks on one table. Last result seems caused by misclick, let’s disregard it. Two other cases demonstrates the possible scenario - declarer collecting all his clubs and West, thinking he is under the pressure discards heart.
Therefore, in a real game my chance to succeed would be 50%, but I was denied that chance. And I was denied by chance to get a good score by slow play of opponents, who benefited from an adjustment.
I believe those kind of double-dummy adjustments are correct only if both sides are in more or less equal fault for being late.
What I am asking is to check who is in fault for being late before the adjustment. I guess it can be done automatically. If one side took, let say, 9 minutes out of 15, they could be highlighted on the screen for directors to make an adjustment. If nobody highlighted directors assign score as usual. If one pair is highlighted – directors must treat all doubts in favor of their opponents.


2. Sorry, this is completely unrelated to the first part rant. When I looked my archive to provide the previous link I accidently noticed what one of the board I played day before was adjusted to ave-/ave+. http://www.bridgebas...username=olegru
I guess I left club before adjustment was made, so I was not aware about it. I would expect director try to communicate with us, make us aware what there is a problem with board and he/she is going to look at it. Nothing. Ok, maybe opponents complained about the board after we left, and director could not talk to us. But in that case I would expect director at least send us message “board 11 was adjusted by such and such reason.” Nothing. I accidently found that my result was adjusted and have no ideas why.
I called partner to check if he knows something. He also does not have any information and director never communicated with him. I asked partner if he alerted his opening. Answer – “Yes”, alerted before make a bid and typed explanation after the bid.
I don’t care about particular adjustment, but situation when one pair has absolutely no information why result was adjusted looks unacceptable.

Thinking about it, I am sure that director was aware about problem in that board way before we left the club, but did not bother to inform us. My believe based on the fact that declarer took ridiculously long time to play board in question, that caused us to skip the last board. I am guessing slow declarer play was caused by the fact she was busy talking with director. It would be only possible explanation why the board 12, skipped due to slow play of opponents, was adjust to ave for us and ave+ for them.

[steve2005]

If you don't agree with the adjustment you can call the director.
Here are some of the reasons:
The adjustment is wrong-correct play will result in a different result
Declarer (or sometimes defender) will have to make a good play for optimal result
Not enough tricks have been played that the result is clear. This sees to vary from only 1 trick played Avg to 1 trick played is easy hand adj stands


All you have to do is call the director and they will look at it and possibly adjust. If isn't clear they may adjust to AVG or AVG+ If was bd 12 you have to know what directors were working and chat to them.

When they look at the adjustment they can check the time, so mention that if you think it matters.

Have been able to get adjustments and had others make adjustments against me numerous times.

[olegru]

I guess I typed too many words and my point was masked by them.
My post was not about individual adjustments. I have no problem to discuss adjustments with directors (of cause only in cases if I am aware about adjustment).
What I want to discuss is policy of adjustment. I believe ACBL directors should be instructed to do the following:
1. Before make an adjustment almost talk with both sides.
2. After adjustment made send chat or private message with reasons for his decision to all affected players. Especially important in case if director by any reason failed to communicate with one of the side before make and adjustment.
3. Making adjustment in case of late boards take into account which side is in a fault for being late. Information who is in fault should be collected automatically (objectively) and NOT based on complains from players. I guess it would require some job from programmers to provide this information in easily visible fashion.

[barmar]

During ACBL speedballs the directors have to make lots of adjustments. It's probably not feasible for them to have a discussion with every pair involved. Most of them are pretty uncontroversial. In fact, when there are only a few tricks left (starting around trick 8 or 9, I think), it's done automatically by robots.

In the uncommon case where you think the adjustment was unfair, you need to speak up.

[olegru]

Hi Barry. Sorry, I don't like to repeat, but I feel like both my points were missed. I will start from second part it is easy.

2. In order to speak up about possibly unfair adjustment I need to know about the adjustment. If adjustment done before tournament completed I will get notification. But if director adjust the board AFTER tournament FINISHED and never let me know that any of my boards are under consideration, there is a chance that my application already closed and I will not see the notification.
It is a big difference between assigning results for unfinished board and changing actual result. If director decided to punish players by assigning their worse results he need at very least let them know why they were punished. I firmly believe that if result was changed after tournament completed director must send message (chat or PM) to affected players and give them a reason. It is not about the result of the game, it is about the respect to customer.
PS
Look at my second link and explain me why result of the board was adjusted. I sincerely have no idea.

***

1. Thanks, I am aware about procedure of automated adjustment of unfinished boards. My point was more subtle - fair adjustment is not always fair. Look at my first example. Down one is absolutely fair result, no people in right mind would complain to director saying that assign that result would be unfair - to achieve different result opponents should make a serious mistake. But, as a matter of fact, 50% of defenders who was in exactly the same position made that mistake. My proposition was to limit automated assigned by robots by cases there both sides are in approximately in equal fault for being late. If one side is in clear fault no results should be assigned automatically by robots - director should be informed that being late is fault of that side and assign result manually taking into account that all doubted should be treated in favour of their opponents. There to draw the line? I proposed 9 or more minutes taken by one side should put them in fault position. I am sure it is not hard to check time and notify director about existing of the fault position automatically. Unfortunately assignment in such cases cannot be done automatically and it put additional workload to directors, so I have no problem if my proposition would be rejected.