[steve2005]

I had a recent experience facing a precision pair using a FD card where auction went 1st seat 1M P 4M by opp and our side was vul don't remember opp vul

the 4M bid was described as "purely preemptive bid"

im very close to bidding 5♣ on the hand, but didn't trust the explanation as I know most Precision players use 4M on fairly strong hands. However Im very close with slightly different cards/vulnerability might bid 5♣ and go for a big number

dummy came down with 4 small trump, a suit headed by AQ, a suit headed by A and a small singleton. This is hardly a purely preemptive hand. He can practically defeat 5♣ by himself.

I called the director, who said would check if damage at end. well there was nothing to the play (always makes 4) so no damage.

but the director said he couldn't do anything about any possible misexplanation as couldn't even see the explanation.

if I make a misexplanation of one of my bids the director can point out my error and tell me to correct the convention card or straighten out what bids means.

with a FD card you seem to be able to put anything

[1eyedjack]

 steve2005, on 2013-November-16, 11:12, said:

the director said he couldn't do anything about any possible misexplanation as couldn't even see the explanation.

I should have thought that if both opposing sides agree on the explanation that was given at the time, and the director is now informed of that explanation and that it is agreed, then the fact that he cannot "see" the explanation would be irrelevant.That is what happens in face to face games, after all, and it does not seem to circumscribe the director in those events.

[PhilKing]

Why on earth did you waste everyone's time in this fashion?

Since you did not bid 5♣ and go for a number there was no possible damage unless you claim your lead was influenced by the misexplanation.

[Bbradley62]

 PhilKing, on 2013-November-29, 06:43, said:

Why on earth did you waste everyone's time in this fashion?

Since you did not bid 5♣ and go for a number there was no possible damage unless you claim your lead was influenced by the misexplanation.

Why on earth did you make this obnoxious post? Many questions are of the type that "there was no damage on this particular hand, but the question is being asked for future reference".

[PhilKing]

 Bbradley62, on 2013-November-29, 11:50, said:

Why on earth did you make this obnoxious post? Many questions are of the type that "there was no damage on this particular hand, but the question is being asked for future reference".

What are you talking about? OP said he called the director to check for damage - why on earth would you call the director to check "for future reference".

I stand by the remarks - if you think this kind of director calling is OK, then that's your prerogative, but my view is that is a complete waste of everyone's time.

[mycroft]

- Partner may have had an issue.
- There might have been a problem that I, in my lack of knowledge of the rules, don't know enough to know I have.
- I've been told to call the TD when it is clear an irregularity has been found, so I'm doing it.
- They've done this "announcement" before, and possibly with this hand. Other pairs in this tournament may have been damaged by the misinformation, even if I haven't.
- I need to know what the agreement actually *is* to defend properly, and they weren't forthcoming with the correction, or a better explanation.
- Every MI call is a potential UI call - especially if FD still shows everyone every explanation, even partner. Maybe there's a problem with that (well, almost certainly not, but what do "I" as a player who doesn't play Precision and isn't a TD, know?)
- This may be one of those tournaments with draconian policies around mis-filled-out CCs, and this is their third strike.
- In case they *don't* fix their explanation, I want the TD to make it clear that they have to, so that three months from now, when the same thing happens again, the TD can say "I told you to fix this in November, and you're still misexplaining. DP for you."

I'm sure I could think of others if I put my mind to it.

[PhilKing]

 mycroft, on 2013-November-29, 15:38, said:

I'm sure I could think of others if I put my mind to it.

Yikes - I'm glad I don't play these tournies.

[jillybean]

 PhilKing, on 2013-November-29, 16:39, said:

Yikes - I'm glad I don't play these tournies.

I'm glad I don't play in BBO tournies.

[Zelandakh]

If the director had clicked on FD and then Show NS Convention Card (or EW as the case may be) then (s)he can see the FD CC and go to the relevent entry. It seems that the TD was not aware of this and therefore thought the description was unavailable. It is no harder for the TD to ask the pair to correct the FD CC than any other online CC. An advantage of mistakes on an FD CC is that the player making the call can see the error pop up and tell the opponents directly (by using the normal click + type and/or via direct message). Neither of these corrections can be seen by partner so there is no UI problem. It is something I have done myself on the small number of occasions when I find an error (typically a copy+paste error) in one of my FD CCs.

[helene_t]

I don' t see what this has to do with FD. There may or may not be MI but in any case, the fact that the pair involved used an FD card seems immaterial to me.

[Vampyr]

 PhilKing, on 2013-November-29, 16:39, said:

Yikes - I'm glad I don't play these tournies.

I once made a change on my convention card, so some of the footnotes were misnumbered by one. The opponents opened 1NT, my partner overcalled, and RHO could not find the description of the method. I offered to tell her, and she refused. I think there was some damage to them due to not knowing our methods, and they appealed the director's ruling of "result stands". They lost the appeal, but we were fined .5 VP for having our convention cards completed incorrectly.

This was in an EBU tournament, which you do play in.

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2013-December-11, 09:08, said:

I don' t see what this has to do with FD. There may or may not be MI but in any case, the fact that the pair involved used an FD card seems immaterial to me.

FD cards are harder to update. The FD CC editor isn't available at all in the new BBO version.

So many players just use the presupplied cards, which might not exactly match their actual methods. And they might not even know all the differences, since reading an entire FD CC is difficult.

[steve2005]

 helene_t, on 2013-December-11, 09:08, said:

I don' t see what this has to do with FD. There may or may not be MI but in any case, the fact that the pair involved used an FD card seems immaterial to me.

the TD cant easily look at the info on FD card especially if there is interference. yes they can do it but its not like a regular acbl card where its just 1 click.
also the alerts the fd cards give don't show up to the TD or when u look at the deal later