Online Hesitations

[pigpenz]

Is there no limitation to the policy about online hesitations?

we can cry or complain all we want about what happens online but in almost all cases nothing will ever get done.

 

so we roll the contract back to 1NT by your side

and procedural penalty for zero toerance violation

 

thats about all i can see that would be adjusted

and the scoring in the BBO doesnt allow that its only

avg/avg avg+/- or avg -/- or avg+/+

 

the td's dont really have any thing else they can do and as posted

before they are under timelines to get things done do to the nature

of speedballs.

 

also having played 10-13 NT range for about 30 yrs its still not out of the possiblity of partner having a full nt hand himself. I can go back and read the the previous post but was the 10-12 NT pre alerted?

 

Do you think the opps should have the right to say lets play this defense to their NT?

 

These are all things that seem to come up in online games and can creat amiguity...so the best thing to do is call the TD when an infraction occurs, that puts the other person under more scrutiny.

[nige1]

This does make me wonder why BBO doesn't 'stall' partner and RHO's bids in the display - simulating the concept of screens.

Good idea

When LHO bid 2♣, I commented on the chat line "it is not nice to bid on your partner's hesitation."

I recognize that my comment was technically out of line and a violation of zero tolerance.  But it was also 100% correct.  I am very tired of the rampant unethical behavior that exists in the online games, and standing by silently is not going to do anything to correct the problem. I note that the TD did not reprimand me for my comment.  I guess the accuracy of my observation had something to do with it.

ArtK78's slanderous remark is unethical behaviour and the director should penalise it.

[ArtK78]

This does make me wonder why BBO doesn't 'stall' partner and RHO's bids in the display - simulating the concept of screens.

Good idea

When LHO bid 2♣, I commented on the chat line "it is not nice to bid on your partner's hesitation."

I recognize that my comment was technically out of line and a violation of zero tolerance.  But it was also 100% correct.  I am very tired of the rampant unethical behavior that exists in the online games, and standing by silently is not going to do anything to correct the problem. I note that the TD did not reprimand me for my comment.  I guess the accuracy of my observation had something to do with it.

ArtK78's slanderous remark is unethical behaviour and the director should penalise it.

I see. My remark, which was 100% accruate, is slanderous and should be penalized.

 

But LHO's taking advantage of the UI created by his partner's hesitation cannot be penalized because hesitations are not grounds for correction online.

 

Cheating at bridge is OK - commenting about it is a crime.

 

Is there something wrong with this picture?

[fred]

Cheating at bridge is OK - commenting about it is a crime.

 

Is there something wrong with this picture?

It is not OK to suggest, particularly in a public forum, that just because you perceive that a player took advantage of a hesitation that he/she was cheating.

 

Not only is it not OK, but the conclusion you draw is not supported by the facts that you present. There is another (obvious) way to explain what happened:

 

Perhaps the player with the strong hand was a novice.

 

Perhaps the player with the weak hand subscribes to the commonly held belief that when it goes 1NT-P-P and you have a singleton that you should bid.

 

I am not suggesting that what happened would necessarily be considered "OK" in a real life tournament setting, but it certainly would not be considered "cheating". And if you were to openly suggest this in a real life tournament setting you would (appropriately) be the one who would get into trouble.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Trinidad]

I can go back and read the the previous post but was the 10-12 NT pre alerted?

 

Do you think the opps should have the right to say lets play this defense to their NT? 

 

These are all things that seem to come up in online games and can creat amiguity...so the best thing to do is call the TD when an infraction occurs, that puts the other person under more scrutiny.

From the original post:

* 10-12 (we prealerted our 10-12 1NT opening nonvul)

 

My guess (emphasize: guess) is that the opponents were playing DONT vs NT. They saw the prealert and knew that DONT is not a good defense against mini NT's. But due to the nature of speedball events, they decided not to discuss a whole new NT defense in the limited time that they had. (And I think they were right about that.)

 

But then the problems start: You have a huge hand, partner passes and RHO opens a 10-12 NT. You realize that in your system you basically have the choice between pass and bidding 3NT. You decide to pass. It goes pass.

 

Now we go over to the other opponent:

He passed in first seat, LHO opens 10-12 NT and it goes pass-pass. In DONT, he has an obvious 2♣ bid. (DONT is designed to be bid on cheese.) He is about to alert his 2♣ bid (or decided not to alert since they didn't have an agreement vs mini NT's) when his LHO comes up with a comment that is uncalled for. (After all, how could the OP know that he didn't hold Ax/xxx/xx/KQJxxx, a hand that everybody would bid with?)

 

The rest of the bidding is somewhat muddled (not uncommon in speedball events;) ). Opener bids 2♦, LHO doubles that for penalty, but in DONT that double is takeout to find the DONT-er's second suit. RHO bids the second suit and LHO finishes by bidding 3NT.

 

Now, if my guess is correct and the opponents were playing DONT vs strong NT and no agreement vs mini NT then there has been one infraction only: The uncalled for comment by the OP.

 

If this would be a f2f event that I was directing, I would investigate what NT defense was in use. There would be cases where I would adjust the board, but there would also be cases where I wouldn't adjust a thing (e.g. when they played DONT, without agreement on what to do vs mini NT). I would take the OP apart and explain him clearly why he is getting a procedural penalty (PP). This PP he will get, regardless of the NT defense used.

 

Now, this is an online event. The OP posted this on the forum and got heavy criticism all around. I guess that will have a stronger effect than a PP can achieve.

 

Rik

[nige1]

I see.  My remark, which was 100% accruate, is slanderous and should be penalized.

But LHO's taking advantage of the UI created by his partner's hesitation cannot be penalized because hesitations are not grounds for correction online.

Cheating at bridge is OK - commenting about it is a crime.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Yes what is wrong is that

• Your accusation is premature. At the time you made it you had no evidence that it was true.
  
• Also, you are not the person to judge whether there is an infraction. It is up to the director to judge whether an alleged infraction really is an infraction.
  
• Suppose that the director does judge that opponents could have used unauthorised information to their advantage. Accusing your opponents of cheating implicitly or explicitly is still unjustified. All accusations of cheating at Bridge are offensive and most are mistaken. Opponents may not know the law or may have made a genuine mistake.
  

I'm sure you're well aware of all this so why are you protesting? 2 wrongs don't make a right -- but 3 lefts do :P

[ArtK78]

From the original post:

* 10-12 (we prealerted our 10-12 1NT opening nonvul)

 

My guess (emphasize: guess) is that the opponents were playing DONT vs NT. They saw the prealert and knew that DONT is not a good defense against mini NT's. But due to the nature of speedball events, they decided not to discuss a whole new NT defense in the limited time that they had. (And I think they were right about that.)

 

But then the problems start: You have a huge hand, partner passes and RHO opens a 10-12 NT. You realize that in your system you basically have the choice between pass and bidding 3NT. You decide to pass. It goes pass.

 

Now we go over to the other opponent:

He passed in first seat, LHO opens 10-12 NT and it goes pass-pass. In DONT, he has an obvious 2♣ bid. (DONT is designed to be bid on cheese.) He is about to alert his 2♣ bid (or decided not to alert since they didn't have an agreement vs mini NT's) when his LHO comes up with a comment that is uncalled for. (After all, how could the OP know that he didn't hold Ax/xxx/xx/KQJxxx, a hand that everybody would bid with?)

 

The rest of the bidding is somewhat muddled (not uncommon in speedball events;) ). Opener bids 2♦, LHO doubles that for penalty, but in DONT that double is takeout to find the DONT-er's second suit. RHO bids the second suit and LHO finishes by bidding 3NT.

Every convention card has a space for defenses against strong NTs and defenses against weak NTs. So, it is clear that every pair should have at least briefly discussed what they do against weak no trump openings.

 

If they choose to play DONT, that is fine. It is unplayable against weak no trumps, but it is an agreement.

 

By the way, the balancing 2♣ bid was not alerted.

 

And who says that DONT was designed to be bid on cheese? I certainly never read that in any of Cohen's or Bergen's books. And why in balancing seat? Clearly partner has some values (at least 12 HCP, since the opponents didn't even try for game). Why isn't partner bidding on his hand?

 

And, in response to another comment, if this were a face-to-face game, the TD would have been called after RHO's hesitation (or, at least there would have been a mention of the fact of the hesitation and an agreement concerning that fact before the auction proceeded). Unfortunately, in the current state of online bridge games, it is the policy of the ACBL TDs to ignore hesitations as they can arise from many sources unrelated to bridge.

 

That was not the case here.

[pigpenz]

Art in a previous life I was district 20 recorder and sat in on committees and was a member of them also.

 

The case is over there is not much else you can do about it.

 

if there were a committee and opps were guilty as charged there would most likely be a roll back of contract and a procedural penalty against you for your comments.

 

But before any of this would have happened alot would depend on the level of your opponents as Fred has previuosly stated and any input from the TD at the time. Even if in this case its an ACBL BBO SPEEDBALL you are still allowed to call the TD, when you notice the infraction. IMHO this then puts the pressure on the partner of the person who committed the suppossed infraction.

[ArtK78]

Yes, the case is over. And I would not have made any additional postings if it were not for the fact that others resurrected this thread.

 

Calling a TD over a hesitation in an online ACBL game is a complete waste of time. All that will happen is the TD will inform you that hesitations may arise from any number of causes unrelated to bridge, and since those causes cannot be controlled it is the policy of the ACBL TDs to not do anything about hesitations.

 

As for my comment, I agree that it was out of line. And, in a real game, I would not make that comment. But in a real game I would be able to establish that a hesitation had taken place and reserve my rights, or, if necessary, call the TD to establish the facts prior to LHO taking any action in order to reserve my rights. Then, if LHO took an action, it would be subject to scrutiny. And, while some on this thread have tried to justify the bid in balancing seat, I suspect that no one would disagree that Pass is a logical alternative to any other call on the balancer's hand, and that any action other than Pass could have been influenced by the UI.

 

This is a recurring problem in ACBL online games on BBO (and in other online games, I am sure). Since the TDs will not take any actions against players taking advantage of the UI created by hesitations, that leaves us to fend for ourselves. Clearly, we will never get any redress on the score achieved at the table. Where does that leave us? Report the infraction so that some record may be kept of the players involved? That is a most unsatisfactory remedy.

 

The posters on this thread have spent most of their time and energy chastising me for my comment. Fine. I can deal with that. But look at the bridge problem. This is a recurring problem. Is there no remedy?

[Trinidad]

Edited:

 

I didn't see Art's last post. I agree with him that the case is over.

 

Rik

[pigpenz]

The posters on this thread have spent most of their time and energy chastising me for my comment. Fine. I can deal with that. But look at the bridge problem. This is a recurring problem. Is there no remedy?

yes try and get the games to be real ACBL games.

Full rounds 24 boards would be one way.

 

But at the present for some reason everyone wants to play

these 12 board quickie games. Until problems like yours can be

addressed then and only then will be able to have online sectionals

and regionals...hopefully soon ....these can be addressed...but not

until the games are treated as real games.

[rbforster]

So, I guess all of you think that the balance on KJ9xx of hearts and out is perfectly normal

In a KO this weekend I balanced with something like JTxxx QTxx xxx x in a similar situation (bidding 2♣ for the majors at w/w). There was no hesitation and I was a passed hand (known to be quite weak) so there was less risk of partner raising with a good hand.

[A2003]

P) - 1NT* - (P)** - P

(2♣)*** - 2♦ - (x) - P

(2♥) - P - (3NT) - All Pass

 

** - Noticeable hesitation

 

Player may be looking at the movie to check what happened in the previous hand.

This may cause hesitation in the bid. Lot of players do that type of activity.

[ArtK78]

( P) - 1NT* - (P)** - P

(2♣)*** - 2♦ - (x) - P

(2♥) - P - (3NT) - All Pass

 

** - Noticeable hesitation

 

Player may be looking at the movie to check what happened in the previous hand.

This may cause hesitation in the bid. Lot of players do that type of activity.

And the fact that he passes over a weak notrump with a 21 count is merely a coincidence.

[jillybean]

P) - 1NT* - (P)** - P

(2♣)*** - 2♦ - (x) - P

(2♥) - P - (3NT) - All Pass

 

** - Noticeable hesitation

 

Player may be looking at the movie to check what happened in the previous hand.

This may cause hesitation in the bid. Lot of players do that type of activity.

So we are saying all hesitation online is not considered UI because it may have been caused by an outside influence? I think this is clearly wrong.

If you want to play a “serious” game online, I think the onus should be on you to pay attention and minimize any distractions. Players with bad connections will have a pattern of uneven tempo, if otherwise you can’t concentrate any breaks in tempo are at your own risk. You can easily type brb or ‘door’ for any unexpected interruptions.

After unexplained BIT I think most players if asked will tell the truth and say yes, I took a long time for that bid, if that was the case.

[TimG]

If you want to play a “serious” game online,

I think "serious online game" is something of an oxymoron. Expecting a serious game is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

[nige1]

A similar face-to-face case is Detroit 2008 NABC Appeal 1.

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Detroit2008/01-NABC+.pdf

 

Pairs, Green v Red North dealer with: ♠ 954 ♥ 3 ♦ JT4 ♣ JT9865

---- _P (1N) _P

(2♦) _P (2♥) _P

(_P) ??

 

1N = 15-17

Your defense to 1N is:

_X = a minor one-suiter or the majors

2♣ = clubs and a major

2♦ = diamonds and a major

2♥ = hearts

2♠ = spades

2N = both minors

Partner (South) hesitated for at least 10 seconds over 1N.

What do you bid?

 

North bid 3♣ which turned out to be a great success when partner with his advertised 20 count nailed opponents in 3♥X for 800.

 

The direcotor sensibly ruled that North had a logical alternative of pass on his minor-suited 2-count and that partner's long tank made it safer for him to bid. He adjusted the score back to 2♥ undoubled (which seems automatic to me -- I think that North deserved an additional penalty).

 

Amazingly, the appeals committee reinstated the actual result of of 3♥X.

 

And Adam Wildavsky a highly respected commentator, thinks the committee got it right!

 

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

[ArtK78]

A similar face-to-face case is Detroit 2008 NABC Appeal 1.

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Detroit2008/01-NABC+.pdf

 

Pairs, Green. North dealer with: ♠ 954 ♥ 3 ♦ JT4 ♣ JT9865

---- _P (1N) _P

(2♦) _P (2♥) _P

(_P) ??

 

1N = 15-17

Your defense to 1N is:

Double = a minor one-suiter or the majors

2 ♣ = clubs and a major

2 ♦ = diamonds and a major

2 ♥ = hearts

2 ♠ = spades

2 N = both minors

Partner (South) hesitated for at least 10 seconds over 1N.

What do you bid?

 

North bid 3♣ which turned out to be a great success when partner with his advertised 20 count nailed opponents in 3♥ for 500.

 

The direcotor sensibly ruled that North had a logical alternative of pass on his minor-suited 2-count and that partner's long tank made it safer for him to bid. He adjusted the score back to 2♥ undoubled (which seems automatic to me -- I think that North deserved an additional penalty).

 

Amazingly, the appeals committee reinstated the actual result of of 3♥X.

 

And Adam Wildavsky a commentator, for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I normally agree, thinks the committee got it right!

 

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

What I have to say about that is that it is a much different situation when the 1NT opening is a strong NT rather than a weak NT.

 

Over a strong NT, it is quite sensible to pass with a strong balanced hand. So, when the auction dies at 2♥, it is reasonable for the hand in balancing seat to infer that his partner may have a strong balanced hand. This is bridge logic, and while the hesitation certainly makes it more likely that partner has values, the fact that partner has values WHICH HE COULD NOT SHOW ON THE AUCTION is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the auction.

 

Over a weak NT, however, it cannot be said that partner has a strong balanced hand. With a strong balanced hand he would have doubled in direct seat. Virtually all players use a double of a weak NT opening (especially a 10-12 1NT opening) as values/penalty. So, the failure to double the opening 1NT bid should deny significant values. When the auction goes pass-pass to fourth seat, he has the inference that partner does NOT have significant values EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT PARTNER HESITATED AFTER THE 1NT OPENING. Now, balancing on a weak hand makes no sense as a matter of bridge logic.

 

Of course, all of this depends on the methods used by the side which is balancing. Most better players (but not all) play methods against strong NT openings which do not allow for showing strong balanced hands. And I have had more than one expert player tell me that even if he was using such a method, he would not act with a balanced strong hand after a strong 1NT opening on his right, as it is usually a losing action. Partner is almost always weak in this situation, and letting the opponents struggle in 1NT is usually the best course of action.

 

However, against a weak 1NT opening, the defending side can and often does have a game or a large penalty available to them when the next hand is strong. And most better players (but not all) play methods against weak NT openings that include a double showing a strong hand.

[jkdood]

I have tried to refrain from commenting since this situation has bit me in the emotional and disciplinary arse in the past when I either make a table observation like Art did, or in an ACBL setting, get ruled against by an AC ruling such as the Detroit case.

 

At least in live settings, I am encouraged by the new ACBL policy permitting the "I reserve the right to call" comment. Too often it was let's say inconvenient or taken-offensively to call a TD right away, and of course, not calling and having drama develop later when UI seemingly has had a role, gets real ugly.

 

Sure, there are somewhat-unaware less-experienced players (who don't know their full ethical obligations or are oblivious to the BIT) or someone changing the baby's diaper (online) but even a "I reserve.." comment on BBO seems to have merit. If it later develops UI has a possible role and the BIT hand is like the one above, well: I don't think assuming he was watching BBO-movie cuts it.

 

What's more interesting I think, and troubling for me, is that there often seems to be "significant doubt" as to what the BIT suggests and what the LFLA is. The Detroit case is a prime example. This case is somewhat similar.

 

Maybe I sound like Bobby Wolff from the 70's when he sparred with ACs over this, but I personaly feel that the NON-offending side should ALWAYS get the "benefit of the doubt" ruling in these matters, and the offending side should (a) have the burden to appeal, and ( b ) learn their methods, their alert and ethical obligations, and to bid pr pass in tempo in situations where pard may be influenced. A few too many adverse adjustments and they may well improve. If they must give up the game because of all the bridge lawyering, well, it will be a purer game with them staying home and so-be-it if we need their income to flourish as a sport.

 

I know many think that the bridge lawyers should be the ones staying home, and that double-shots, too many director calls, and table-observations like Art made are the worse possible thing for the health of the game. But until there is a more tasteful and acceptable way to educate the offenders and stop the unfairness that results when offenders effectively continue to "get away with it" I'm with Bobby.

[jillybean]

A similar face-to-face case is Detroit 2008 NABC Appeal 1.

http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Detroit2008/01-NABC+.pdf

 

Pairs, Green. North dealer with: ♠ 954 ♥ 3 ♦ JT4 ♣ JT9865

---- _P (1N) _P

(2♦) _P (2♥) _P

(_P) ??

 

1N = 15-17

Your defense to 1N is:

Double = a minor one-suiter or the majors

2 ♣ = clubs and a major

2 ♦ = diamonds and a major

2 ♥ = hearts

2 ♠ = spades

2 N = both minors

Partner (South) hesitated for at least 10 seconds over 1N.

What do you bid?

 

North bid 3♣ which turned out to be a great success when partner with his advertised 20 count nailed opponents in 3♥ for 500.

 

The direcotor sensibly ruled that North had a logical alternative of pass on his minor-suited 2-count and that partner's long tank made it safer for him to bid. He adjusted the score back to 2♥ undoubled (which seems automatic to me -- I think that North deserved an additional penalty).

 

Amazingly, the appeals committee reinstated the actual result of of 3♥X.

 

And Adam Wildavsky a commentator, for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I normally agree, thinks the committee got it right!

 

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

I think the pertinent point here is that EW were allowed to appeal.

[blackshoe]

Regarding the Detroit appeal, a couple of things:

 

1. Contestants in a bridge tournament are permitted to appeal any ruling made at their table, so I guess I don't understand Jilly's comment.

 

2. I note that Wildavsky was the only commentator to agree with the committee.

 

3. I think Wolff's "sanctimonious rhetoric" was a bit of an overbid. I do have some sympathy for Wolff's view in this case, though I think his crusade (of which his comments here are a part) is ill judged.

 

4. Comments about weak NT methods don't seem very pertinent to a case in which a strong NT was used.

 

5. I think the attitude "rule for the NOS; let the OS appeal" is unfortunate. Rather we should try to get directors to make the right ruling (whatever that may be) in the first place.

 

6. this was not an easy case. Particularly when the committee heard South, but no one was around to rebut him. Seems to me that kind of thing introduces a potential bias that should perhaps not be engendered. Still, it seems to me the TD got it right, South's arguments not withstanding. On the gripping hand, we have committees to apply judgement, and that's what they did.

[ArtK78]

4. Comments about weak NT methods don't seem very pertinent to a case in which a strong NT was used.

But it is relevent to the original post in this thread. Especially in light of this comment:

 

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

[blackshoe]

But it is relevent to the original post in this thread. Especially in light of this comment:

 

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

I didn't get from your post that it was about the OP, but fair enough.

[jillybean]

1. Contestants in a bridge tournament are permitted to appeal any ruling made at their table, so I guess I don't understand Jilly's comment.

There is an online trend to ignore all cases of hesitation, as it could be caused by outside influences. So, you are not going to get a TD to review the hand, there is no ruling to appeal. It would be just fine if we were debating the merits of a TD decision or AC.

[nige1]

What I have to say about that is that it is a much different situation when the 1NT opening is a strong NT rather than a weak NT.

The cases are different in some ways. Among the features they share are

• LHO opens 1N.
  
• Your methods don't include a penalty double of 1N.
  
• Partner hesitates and passes.
  
• You protect with a poor shapely hand.
  
• In both cases, a cynic might argue...
  • Without assurance from partner's hesitation. a danger of protection is that opponents wake up and bid and make game.
    
  • Another risk of protection is that partner himself bids a hopeless game because he places you with a few values for your bid . This risk is reduced if partner is unethical and believes that his hesitation has already shown an enormous hand.