[pilowsky]

Playing in a BBO tournament today my partner and I arrived in the disaster shown below.
This was not looking good and after the double, I think that I should have bid 1H; but I didn't.
Things were looking dismal until on trick 4 my partner led the ♦5 from dummy and North stopped playing.
Eventually, the time expired and an average was posted.
Two boards later, the Director announced that the board was adjusted to 1CX-3 and when I asked why I was told: "Because the result is obvious".

So my question is: if a result is obvious why bother playing the hand?
Why not just ask the TD to adjudicate the 'obvious' result if I'm unhappy with the opinion of the opps, or if my partner decides to leave for a snack at an inopportune moment?

---

[dsLawsd]

It was a correct ruling for the E-W score but not the N-S score who should have been given a procedural penalty.
Obvious was not the right word but it was a likely result for the sake of all pairs playing. Winning 4 tricks about right, no?


DGS
CCD

[pilowsky]

It also raises a minor question (apropos of the current 1NT thread) about which jurisdictional rules apply in games run under the auspices of BBO which this one was.

[keledor]

To turn the question around, what result do you think is reasonable?

Given N/S are at fault for not completing the board then I would bias any doubt in the result to the non-offending side as split scores aren't available but an average isnt fair so down 2 or 3 is the only reasonable outcome and down 2 takes some effort from the defence.

[ThomasRush]

pilowsky, on 2021-October-30, 20:58, said:

Playing in a BBO tournament today my partner and I arrived in the disaster shown below.
This was not looking good and after the double, I think that I should have bid 1H; but I didn't.
Things were looking dismal until on trick 4 my partner led the ♦5 from dummy and North stopped playing.
Eventually, the time expired and an average was posted.
Two boards later, the Director announced that the board was adjusted to 1CX-3 and when I asked why I was told: "Because the result is obvious".

So my question is: if a result is obvious why bother playing the hand?
Why not just ask the TD to adjudicate the 'obvious' result if I'm unhappy with the opinion of the opps, or if my partner decides to leave for a snack at an inopportune moment?

---

I know this isn't the point of your post, but let me make a comment about the bidding.

1. West should absolutely pass at his second turn. He has no idea what his partner's shape is, and only knows that East has less than six HCP. The opponents will rescue you quite often on this sequence. Or, P happens to have three or four clubs and a singleton spade and your bidding only makes the situation worse.
2. I far prefer a balancing 1NT by South. The hand is NT distribution with clubs well-stopped. 1NT allows partner (N) to transfer to a major or bid Stayman, both of which will right-side the contract and protect the club suit on opening lead.
3. East is correct to pass at his first turn, but after the double is passed around to him, he knows that there is a club stack sitting over his partner. East has two five-card suits, one of which is likely to be better than clubs. While 1!D is a possible bid, a redouble should say, "You're in trouble in clubs, partner. Bid the first suit you're willing to play in", and West will bid 1!D (to allow E to pull to hearts if E held both majors). Had West been, say, 4315 shape, he'd bid 1!H (not 1!S) in case partner held his actual hand.

[mw64ahw]

1. West should absolutely pass at his second turn. He has no idea what his partner's shape is, and only knows that East has less than six HCP. The opponents will rescue you quite often on this sequence. Or, P happens to have three or four clubs and a singleton spade and your bidding only makes the situation worse.
[/quote]
How about a XX to indicate a default club opening and force the issue?

[pilowsky]

The bidding question is irrelevant; yes, someone should have done something - probably me.
But this is not the point.
Below is what it says in the WBF - and since this game is run by BBO I imagine (although they don't tell us) that WBF regs apply.

It seems to imply that Directors are not intended to use their Bridge skills to adjudicate the likely result of the board in the event that, through no fault of any person, it cannot be completed.
2A suggests that the maximum is 60/40 or 3 at IMPs.
Which law in this (or another section) suggests that if a board is abandoned by a pair the Director can decide what the result is - because "it's obvious" - or for any other reason?

In this particular case, the match could not be completed because the winning side had left.
Suppose South is declaring in 7♠ holding AKQJxxxxxxxxx but decides to leave after trick 2. Now what?
Does the Director say the result "is obvious"?
"Obvious to whom"?

If you plan to read all of the rules and understand them before you play - good luck.

Quote

WBF; laws of duplicate Bridge; 2017[/size]
LAW 12
A. Power to Award an Adjusted Score
On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86B). This includes:
1. The Director may award an adjusted score in favour of a non-offending contestant when he judges that these Laws do not prescribe a rectification for the particular type of violation committed.
2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).
3. The Director may award an adjusted score if there has been an incorrect rectification of an Irregularity

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1. (a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.
(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.
[c] An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner may be included.
(d) If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score (see C2 below).
(e) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:
(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the consequence of rectifying its infraction.
(ii) The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self-inflicted.

2. (a) When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained [see also C1(d)] the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault, average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partly at fault, and average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault.
(b) When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of average plus or average minus at IMP play, that score is plus 3 IMPs or minus 3 IMPs respectively. Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this may be varied by the Tournament Organizer as provided for by Laws 78D, 86B3 and (d) hereunder.
[c] The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in
IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session.
(d) The Regulating Authority may provide for circumstances where a contestant fails to obtain a result on multiple boards during the same session. The scores assigned for each subsequent board may be varied by regulation from those prescribed in (a) and (b)
above.

[mycroft]

First, you don't have to worry about the Laws - that's what the Director is for. Of course, if you want to disagree with the Director's ruling, it's helpful to know what you're arguing against.

Here, however, it's easy (though one of the first skills needed to learn when Law-reading is what isn't relevant. Like 90% of Law 12, in this case).

L74C6 (and 8), or potentially 68B1 ("abandon[ing] their hand") leading to L82B1 and 12. Due to the nature of the event (BBO), certain things are not possible. I am surprised it was one of your opponents that left - hopefully it was a internet hiccup and not having a stroke at the keyboard (yes, that happened to a friend of mine). I would much more expect the opponent.

Having said that, ignoring the "out of hand" issues (like the PP that can't be assigned online, or the lack of weighted scores), we have to assign a score. An artificial score is clearly a windfall for declarer (because there's no way they're getting 60% on this board even if people who only play hearts fill in to finish the hand), and anyway shouldn't happen - a result can be obtained (12C2a), so we do it.

It seems obvious that South has the ♣K, or West wouldn't have ducked twice and Ace. So let the first diamond go, and then either the next diamond or the heart finesse leads to two tricks in already, ♦A and a ruff, three spades and two clubs, and Declarer gets the ♦K and two hearts. That does in fact seem "automatic". If polling shows me that someone that doesn't care about the hand would lead a fourth trump, I would give some fraction of -2 (giving the benefit of doubt to the non-offenders). But of course, BBO won't let me weight scores, so I'm stuck with -2 or -3.

My feeling is that it should be obvious who has the ♣K. Definitely if your partner had abandoned the hand (which I assumed the first time), -3 is "automatic". I could be convinced -2 is right, especially if North quit for a no-excuse reason. I would be surprised if 3NT is bid and made very often here (if bid, my guess is that it makes a reasonable amount of time - it shouldn't, but it's hard to pitch well to not get end-played or give away a trick. But still). So the difference in score between -500 and -800 is pretty minor.

So, yeah, determine the infraction, 12A1, 12B1a, b, and c, and potentially 90A, depending on what the reason for the noplay was.

But I bet it was "temporary internet issues", and all this "how dare they do this to *me*?" is exactly that. I'd be much more suspicious if it was declarer potentially "ragequit"ing.

How much of this should a player need to be able to do? None. Call the TD and get an adjustment. If they don't agree with the adjustment, make the case - the question is fine at first, and the answer ("automatic") seems brusque, but correct. If they disagree with the answer, now it's time to use their (bridge, not Law) skills to argue about how automatic it really wasn't. But then, they have to actually state a case.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2021-November-01, 02:37, said:

The bidding question is irrelevant; yes, someone should have done something - probably me.
Below is what it says in the WBF - and since this game is run by BBO I imagine (although they don't tell us) that WBF regs apply.

No, WBF regulations don't generally apply. The regulations in effect depend on who is hosting the tournament -- they're the "sponsoring organization" mentioned in the Laws.

Most ACBL tournaments are treated like ACBL club games, where the club is the SO, although most clubs simply adopt ACBL tournament regulations.

Other tournaments are regulated by the specific tourney host.

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2021-November-01, 16:51, said:

No, WBF regulations don't generally apply. The regulations in effect depend on who is hosting the tournament -- they're the "sponsoring organization" mentioned in the Laws.

Most ACBL tournaments are treated like ACBL club games, where the club is the SO, although most clubs simply adopt ACBL tournament regulations.

Other tournaments are regulated by the specific tourney host.

I meant by BBO as in Churros open pairs.

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2021-November-01, 17:10, said:

I meant by BBO as in Churros open pairs.

Those follow BBO regulations, which I don't think are actually codified anywhere.

[pilowsky]

barmar, on 2021-November-01, 17:45, said:

Those follow BBO regulations, which I don't think are actually codified anywhere.

So if I mess up will I be put on double-secret probation?


Assuming that there is a little known codicil in the BBO book of rules.