sanst

You’re right. I think a player should use her or his judgment and not be restricted by rules like the Rule of N. Actually, the president of the WBFLC wrote me not so long ago that counting HCP’s should not have precedence over hand judgment. Therefore I think that the HUM part of the WBF Systems Policy should be revised where it states that an opening bid at the one level may not be made with values a king or more below average strength.

IMNSHO the EBU regulations deny the basic principle of bridge: making tricks. Bridge is not about distribution ond certainly not about HCP’s. Having said this and looking at East’s hand, I can only conclude that I fully condone his or her bidding. This is a hand with a great potential for making tricks in a majors contract and hardly any in the defense. Even ♠K is doubtful. Not having a possibility to open a weak hand with both majors, I don’t think waiting till you can introduce the suits at a higher level is wise, certainly not vulnerable. North has been far to passive. A double was certainly called for after the 1NT. The 2NT after the passed 2♥ did show both minors, a double would probably do the same in this situation, it does in my book, but doesn’t give any idea about the strength of this hand. If NS are damaged, it’s mainly due to North being far too timid. What this problem makes clear, at least to me, is that the regulations are based on distributions that result from shuffling, not on computer generated hands. Hands like East’s were much rarer in the past, but now these turn up every so many deals. And East didn’t psyche, but used sound bridge judgment in his or her bidding.

Hope you enjoy it. But I stay away from a game where cheating is easy and, worse, it’s done on all levels. There’s a reason for the establishment of the Credentials Advisory Team (CAT), which investigates ‘irregularities’ and ‘coincidences’ at the top level. There are also many complaints about cheating at the lower levels in online bridge, down to partners sitting next to each other. And it’s all almost impossible to prove if they take some rather basic precautions.

There are all kinds of computer glitches. Lamford mentioned quite a few and there are more like a wobbly wifi connection or even a freeze that makes a restart necessary. If Murphy is around there will also be a Windows update :D. But losing one’s mouse is a new one for me. I think lamford’s reasoning is right. Again a reason why online bridge isn’t an alternative to serious F2F bridge.

If ChCh usually plays a tempo, an eight second break is unusual. I would believe him if he had written that he had dropped the mouse, which is not very rare. Getting on the floor, picking up the device an getting it to work properly could well take 8 seconds and even longer. But losing? I’ve no idea what it means. So I would start with asking what actually happened.

Did you make clear that 4NT is ace asking according to the OP? We’ve no idea whether this situation has been discussed between the players, but without evidence showing otherwise you should believe that this is ace asking and nothing else. What those players think about the bid is irrelevant if you have sufficient evidence to know what the agreement is. The only relevant question is whether a sufficient number of the questioned players would pass or even consider passing. Obviously none, so pass is not even a LA and it also shows that the player probably used the UI arising from the pause.

I don’t think that passing 4NT is the problem, it’s the passing after a 90 seconds pause. Whatever the agreement was, if any, whatever the passer thought, it’s about this pause and it’s consequences that we should give an opinion. Such a long break certainly suggests that the bid is not what the agreement is and making use hereof is blatant use of UI.

According to the OP 4NT was ace asking.

What is missing, is what the 4NT player was going to do after he got the answer. We don’t know what their agreement is, but he would know that it should show no aces. Was he going to pass or would he have gone forward? He should be quite convincing to make me believe that he would have passed 5♣ or 5♦, but who knows? But otherwise I would probably have come to the same result as you. And I would also have pointed out that a player not only has the right to use his own judgment but should do so, but that he, using that judgment, should avoid to give the impression that he might have used UI. Answering to Blackwood is a LA here and passing is, IMO, not. Any partnership should get in trouble if one of the partners didn’t feel the obligation to answer bids like Stayman, transfers or ace asking.

This looks pretty ridiculous to me. You probably also want every player to sit upright and move in a steady tempo like an automaton, thereby preventing body language. Explain all partner’s calls would take an enormous amount of time, because you certainly want a full explanation, not just 1♣ “2+ clubs, 11+ points, usng the rule of twenty”. No, the explanation should also tell what is not included in the call, like 5M or a 1NT hand, and also everything you know about partner’s habits in the field of hand evaluation. Of course the opponents will ask, each at his or her turn, some extra information. How do you propose that no UI is given by asking? If your suggestions are to be followed, I will most certainly look for an other pastime, not a game that seems to be about legal niceties for nerdy lawyers. BTW: have you ever seen a systems book from a top-level pair? These usually are many pages long containing not just agreements but also discussed situations. Do you want to have all that available to the opponents to be consulted during auction and play? How much time would that cost. And what about us lesser gods, who don’t have that information on paper? Are we to tell what we know about the way our partner thinks? Looks like a recipe for fine fights between partners and the break up of partnerships. Why do you play bridge, anyway? You give the impression that you think that everyone is cheating. Can’t be much fun then.

That there is a problem with cheating in online bridge, is certain. This week the Dutch union created a page on the net where you can report possible cheating. That was unthinkable in off line bridge. You can take precautions as pescetom mentions, but that’s only feasible in high level bridge. When you’re being paid a decent sum, there should be the necessary measures to protect the other players and sponsors. The real problem is the clash between the necessary observation of the players and their right to privacy. Nobody wants to be watched in their private environment, certainly not when enjoying a simple game of bridge. But they want everyone involved to be honest, not cheating consciously nor unconsciously. The latter happens a lot, in off line bridge too, especially at the lower levels. My conclusion: you can have competitive online bridge at the highest level with all necessary precautions, but otherwise online bridge is for those who don’t mind a bit of cheating, because they see it as a non-competitive pastime. I’m not one of those, so I don’t play online.

The Nordic Bridge Union has sent a letter about cheating to almost all organizations that are regulating the game, WBF, EBL and other zonal organizations, plus the national unions. You’ll find the letter at bridgewinners.com.

In a online game???

Nobody seems to notice that SB’s lead was out of turn. :lol: :lol:

I’ve no idea how it works, and I’m not really interested, but Autoplay on or off it looks like extraneous information to me. I would consider it not authorized by Law 16A1, so it’s UI, not AI. But why bother? Online bridge, which certainly doesn’t appeal to me, has only vaguely something to do with the game as described and regulated by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. It’s probably a nice alternative to it for some, but use the rules as set by the organizers, who seem to have only partially read the Laws and implemented those parts of these that they thought useful. Don’t try to apply the Laws, because these are not applicable.

Probably you thought you ruffed, but you didn’t, you just played a card from another suit which you thought was trump. Splitting hairs? Yes, sorry.

If this is an online game, the situation you describe is impossible. There are no withering looks, at least not visible for the other players. You can’t ruff in NT, the software wouldn’t allow that and it wouldn’t also allow a play from the wrong hand. What you describe is a f2f game and should be treated as such. No buttons but a bellowing SB, who should be reported to the authorities as breaking the sanitary rules. He should also be thrown out of the venue immediately. As to the case: in f2f RR wouldn’t alert his own bid, unless screens are in use. I’m afraid this has to be rewritten in accordance with the rules of the game, either online or f2f, with or without screens.

In an interview Michal Nowosadzki, caught self-kibitzeing on BBO, said, that he first did it just to see how that worked and after that found it addictive. I think it works like that for most cheats, not just at bridge but in general, it starts as a trial, “is it really that easy?”, then do it “just once more” and are hooked. It’s like a drug because it gives a thrill. It’s necessary that you have a ‘flexible’ conscience, but that’s about it. A former colleague of mine - we had already discovered that he wasn’t to be trusted - became a con man by just trying how easy it was to get a Mercedes for free from a dealer. He started a career in fraude, including getting a job at top management of the largest telecom provider in the country, but was sentenced many times. But nothing could stop him, notwithstanding many years prison and promises to his wife and kids.

Where does general bridge knowledge end? If you start announcing such calls, you will probably confuse less experienced opponents and make you look like a pedantic fool in the eyes of experienced players.

I’m afraid that in the real world we will see the change to online bridge for major events pretty soon. With some precautions, as pescetom wrote, the advantages are obvious. Cheating like there has been the last decades would be impossible. Another advantage is that you can have a bigger audience, which might bring in some money. And the costs would be much less than now. Players and officials traveling around the world isn’t particularly cheap and neither are the venues and the accommodations. From what I read about the Alt Invitational tournament’s that are being played now, the top players rather enjoy it. Of course self-kibitzing, like Nowosadzki did, should be made impossible.

There is no stop card in online bridge, at least not at BBO or the Dutch Stepbridge.

Post-covid?? There are still some thousand new cases daily in the UK and rising. Over here, in The Netherlands, the bellowing of SB would be a criminal offense, even with a facial mask. We are still considering whether it’s safe or not to begin the physical play. Some clubs have started, but most members are quite reluctant and there might be a government announcement tonight banning groups of more than thirty people, which would make it more or less impossible.

This passage of the OP I find mysterious: “At the end of the auction, South, asked West the meaning of his double of 2♥. West alerted it as penalties.” AFAIK in online bridge W would have done that when he made the call. But in post #18 nige1 conforms that this was at the end of the auction, so not at the moment that W bid. If that was really the case, I get the feeling that W had something else in mind - maybe showing points and four spades - but decided it was penalties when E let the double stand. After the play he changed the explanation again when E answered ‘no agreement’. If that is the case, I can’t blame S for drawing a wrong conclusion.

This is getting far too personal.

Maybe, but it’s the law. But you’re essentially wrong in not allowing a player to loose count or not to remember exactly who played what. Only the very best players are able to reproduce the play correctly and somebody can easily miss who played which card. Even more important: it’s irrelevant. You should give a full and accurate description of your agreements and a failure to do so is a serious breach of the laws. If a player claims to have been damaged by this, and his claim is not completely unbelievable, he has a right to redress without being subject to an thorough examination of his line of play. Only when some stupidity, unrelated to the MI, is obvious you can decide otherwise but without favouring the OS.