New convention.

[keylime]

I agree as well with this note: versus live bridge, I accept the lag as part of the playing field -> at least the "if it hesistates, shoot it" crowd can't hurt me here! :P

[hrothgar]

Lets say you Dr. Todd are holding 18 hcp and your p opens 1 nt. You are happy because you are going to have a fun and interesting auction to find the right spot. About that time you click your bid and get a little annoyed that opp is not passing/bidding.

 

Then the td comes to the table and suddenly your chat window starts rolling by at a high rate of speed and the last 2 lines are something from the td about removing you.  You have just been lagged.

 

In Face to face it is always going to be more clear when someone is huddling/hesitating/coffee housing or what ever other name you want to call it.

 

Online it is not.

You, your opps, your partner, the td, or the bbo system itself all could be having delays that are not caused by anyone and you have not one bit of control over it. It is frequently the case that a player will call us to the table and complain of how slow the opps are when it is them that is lagging.

This is a very nice little story, but ultimately its not relevent to the issue at hand.

 

The casebooks that come out of the ACBL Nationals are chock full of hesitation rulings. If you look at these rulings, they all follow the same proceedure:

 

1. The Director establishes whether there was a hesitation

2. The Director determines whether the hesitation demonstrably suggested a specific action. (A lead, a double, pulling, yada yada yada)

 

The regulatory structure doesn't care why a hesitation (or an unduely fast play) took place.

 

It doesn't matter if the the player had a difficult problem to think about

It doesn't matter if the player had a 40 second brain fart

It doesn't matter if the player was deliberately trying to signal that he had nothing to think about by passing lightning fast.

 

The regulatory system decided that it is too difficult to judge intent. They didn't want to try to read minds or deal with 1001 different excuses about why there was a VERY GOOD REASON for the hestitation. The existence of a hesitation, in and off itself is sufficent grounds for adjustment.

 

There is no reason why this same principle shouldn't be applied in the online environment.

 

It doesn't matter if they have a genuine "problem" hand

It doen't matter if they have a connection problem

It doesn't matter if they're off using the WC

 

If they hesitate, there may be grounds for adjustment.

 

I understand that a person who is experiencing connection problems might perceive that someone else is lagged. However, its quite apparant to everyone else at the table where the problem lies.

[mycroft]

Just to clarify something from Richard's post:

 

If a player breaks tempo, UI has been transmitted. UI is in and of itself not grounds for adjustment for any reason (well, except for coffeehousing and the like, but that adjustment is not for the UI, it's for deliberate attempt to deceive the opponent). You are allowed to think, be distracted (provided it isn't in a situation where you could decieve and have no bridge reason to think), or otherwise.

 

1) If partner makes a call that is deliberately suggested by the UI, when a less-suggested LA exists, then there has been an infraction, and if the less-suggested LA leads to a better score for the opponents, *then* there is an adjustment.

 

Note that Richard's point is still intact - we don't judge intent on the UI. We look at it from "what is demonstrably suggested" by the UI, whatever it was - we don't care if the player "doesn't have his hesitation", for instance.

 

2) The opponents are entitled to use the UI at their own risk, but if the UI was generated at a time when the player had no bridge reason for the UI, and in a situation that was likely to deceive the opponenents, then we will adjust. This catches "I have the queen" coffeehousing and the like - but note that ruling "case history" is very lenient in finding bridge reasons; "Okay, that makes no sense, but I can see where someone might have to think here" is usually accepted, but "I had to determine whether the 7 or the 5 would be the best falsecard" is not.

 

If you wanted to be consistent (and a bit draconian, but I don't see much reason why the odd extra catch is a problem), "I was lagged" can be considered no bridge reason. The players are already aggrieved when I rule "I know you didn't think this way, but if someone was trying to pass this information, she would have done the same thing as you did, and the laws force me to rule the same way"; the one or two extra a month that are added by "lag coffeehousing" wouldn't be a big deal.

 

In Gwen's specific example, there's likely no problem. 1NT - long pause 6NT doesn't admit of any LAs to pass anyway - and that's why I'm making the difference between "hesitating being grounds for adjustment" (which it isn't) and "using the information from the hesitation being grounds for adjustment". 1NT - long pause 2C doesn't admit of LAs usually, either; and unless you relinquish captaincy, it never will. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have a point - switch the 1NT to 12-14, and now there's an issue when it goes 1NT - long pause 4NT.

 

As an aside, while "hesitate and bid" does tend to cause fewer problems than "hesitate and pass", I disagree with DrTodd, bids can cause tempo problems. You have a decent 18, so you open a strong club. Partner thinks for an eternity and bids 1D. He's probably got a near-game-force, and you know it; you'd better be rock-solid-sure of your ground before accepting any invitation. Same hand, but now the long pause ends in 1S, GF. He's probably got the same borderline hand and chose to upgrade it this time - if the continued auction gives slam possibilities and you don't investigate them, and only make 4, you might be ruled against again.

 

Michael.

[awm]

I agree that it's difficult to rule on tempo issues in an online environment. Because of lag, distractions, and so forth it is probably best to usually let the table result stand.

 

But a general policy of "we will not rule on tempo issues" is not the way to go. Besides authorizing people to actually cheat via conventions like DrTodd's, I think particularly aggregious cases should be ruled upon. To give an example from my local club:

 

My RHO opened 1♣ and I overcalled 1NT. LHO thought for about two minutes and then passed on a balanced ten-count. When this came back to RHO he doubled -- with a balanced twelve!

 

This action is not just "suggested by the UI", it's a seemingly illogical action that no normal player would ever take without the UI. We called the director and the result was adjusted, as well as a penalty being assessed against the offenders (it was called a ZT penalty, basically the director thought the doubler was trying to cheat and had enough experience he should know better).

 

In any case, I think in this sort of aggregious situation, a ruling on tempo really needs to be made. If the partner of the person breaking tempo makes a call that "most people would've made" even though there might be some other logical alternative, it's probably reasonable to let it stand and give them the benefit of the doubt.

[sceptic]

so does that mean my partner and myself can no longer play transfer hesitations?

 

i.e. if I hesitate over RHO's hesitation it means x and if I bid quickly then it means y

[Al_U_Card]

Is THAT what they mean when they refer to xyz? :P I thought it sounded shifty.... ;)

[Free]

Pfff, while you wait, you might as well call your partner and say what you have exactly and what your bid will mean...

[jtfanclub]

So...if Fred had an option put in for directors so that a player couldn't see the last round of bidding until it was that player's turn to bid, do you think it would be popular? It would be (I think) not overly hard to program, make it almost impossible to to use hesitations (since you couldn't tell who hesitated), and increase the frustration level for players as they'd have to wait three times as long for something to happen.

 

Is it something you would want?

[DrTodd13]

You don't need to merge all 3 bids into one. You only need to merge LHO and CHO. It is ok if you see RHO hesitate. If he does hesitate that just gives you more time to analyze LHOs and CHOs bids that you just received. I implemented my own bridge system and this is how I did it. It is certainly more complicated than just sending the bid to everyone when the server receives it but in the grand scheme of things it is pretty easy to implement. In practice, what little play my system has got, none of my testers have commented negatively on this feature.

[keylime]

I got a contribution...the "all purpose 2C bid over Precision 1C openings" convention.

 

At least 10 times I've had this happen:

 

1C* (forcing) - P - 1D* (art negative) - 2C*

 

You ask what 2C is and you get Michaels, clubs, diamonds or majors, confusion, "help me pard didn't we talk about this before playing?" looks, the "um, I have no idea" answer, and of course the "not discussed" answer as LHO is absolutely lost in the wilderness.

[jtfanclub]

I got a contribution...the "all purpose 2C bid over Precision 1C openings" convention.

 

At least 10 times I've had this happen:

 

1C* (forcing) - P - 1D* (art negative) - 2C*

 

You ask what 2C is and you get Michaels, clubs, diamonds or majors, confusion, "help me pard didn't we talk about this before playing?" looks, the "um, I have no idea" answer, and of course the "not discussed" answer as LHO is absolutely lost in the wilderness.

That one's easy, in face-to-face

 

-If he doesn't ask, it's the majors

-If he asks about the 1♣ only, it's a pre-emptive club bid.

-If he asks about both the club and the diamond bid, it's a full strength overcall.

 

It's especially funny when they honestly don't know.

 

1♣! P 1♦! 2♣ (without asking)

X! 2♥ X!

 

NOW they ask what the 1 ♦ bid means. I've always been tempted to tell them that it shows a good hand with at least one major.

[mycroft]

My favourite Lower-the-Boom auction was still:

 

1NT (announced: 11+-14) - X - XX - 2S;

X - 3C - X -

"what was the double of 2S?" "Penalty".

"What was the redouble?" "Penalty".

 

Oops.

Michael.

[keylime]

Michael,

 

How big was the telephone number? :rolleyes:

[Gerben42]

This thread reminds me of a tournament I played 2 days ago.

 

TOURNAMENT RULES:

 

* No Undo

* No Psychs

 

So you can psyche if you want, claim it was a misclick and complain that you could not undo it?

 

Of course just like Todd's example you shouldn't, but it sure makes me think...

[mycroft]

Dwayne:

 

1100. But on the previous hand they had walked into our weak NT auction and got taken for 800. It was that match that generated this quote from our teammates:

 

"We play Precision; *we* usually are the swing pair."

Michael.