Grounds for adjustment?
This occured at board five this afternoon
https://bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?tourney=37660-1624367799-&username=MaggieTho
West had lost connection and East (Playing a weak no trump) opened 1 Club.
After the 1C bid was made, the director (yours truly) inserted a robot playing West and the auction proceded as shown resulting in a contract of 3NT, two off.
The problem arises because with a human partner (playing a 12-14 NT), East would rebid 2NT (17-18 balanced) however playing opposite a Robot partner there is no way for East to accurately describe their hand (since the 15-17 balanced hand would have opened 1NT, which the Robot would have passed, and a 2NT rebid would show 18-19 (as described if you view the traveller).
So the question is:
Do we allow 1NT making (which is what would have happened if East had changed their bid to accommodate the Robot - Undo's are allowed)? OR
Do we allow 2NT-1 (which is what would have occured had East's human partner been there)? OR
Does the score 3NT-2 (table score) stand (As EW are authors of their own misfortune)?
FWIW - 1N making scores 50%; 2N-1 scores 42.86% and 3N-2 scored 21.43%
Comments
So if the A and Q of diamonds had been the other way round and 3NT rolled in would we be asking if we should be adjusting to +150 instead of +400 to EW? I suspect not.
Since undos were allowed there was a case for allowing the 1C bid to be replaced with a bid in accordance with the robot's system. So if you really thought there was a case for adjustment you could rule director's error.
Just a thought, it seems like the director wonders whether putting in a robot to play was right. I have always wondered why directors insert a robot or themselves to bid a hand when one partner seemingly has connection problems. Yes it's nice to "finish" all the hands but don't the laws already cover the problem in that if a hand isn't Started then an adjusted score is allocated depending on who's fault it was that the board was not completed. I note that the partner has returned for the second board so the partnership might have been able to complete both boards for a "natural" result. Or does this require the director to be more aware of what is happening at the tables?
Yes I understand why robots are availble to "make up" a table but are they inserted during play just to keep things "ticking over". The other point is "do the participants agree that robots are inserted or do they wish to have the consequences of the laws of duplicate bridge? Should organisers/directors make participants aware of what happens when connection problems occur?
So that brings us back to Pauls' suggestion of "director error". What was the error? Putting the robot in or not telling the player that they can have an undo? How does one rectify the score and tell both sides why?
CMOT_Dibbler
There is no overriding regulation about what club directors should or should not do, and most clubs have an existing policy. In its absence, the laws would say that there is no adjustment to be made (effectively the player failed to update the sub on their system). As Paul pointed out, if you agreed an adjustment here, there would be countless times when an adjustment to reduce the pair's score would also apply which just becomes unenforceable.
You could rule that the director should have asked East if they want an UNDO when West became a robot. You could rule that East should call the TD rather than make their rebid to say they are 'stuffed'. I would want to rule that the table result should stand. If a tournament organiser/director wants to rule differently in these situation they need to know when to do so, so that players are treated consistently.
I think East should have been allowed to opt for Av- instead of playing the hand with the robot, but the reality is that most people just want to play (until their substitute partner messes things up for them) and once they have played the board out there are no grounds for adjustment.