Online Hesitations

[pigpenz]

There is an online trend to ignore all cases of hesitation, as its cause may be from outside influences. 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.

yes there is but for me what i have noticed is that when there are online hesitations there almost always seems to be questionable bidding or play afterwards...so to just blame it on connections is crazy.

 

But i do think it has alot to do with the quality of the game you are playing in. How do you control the type of behaviour in these games, I dont think you can...you either learn to live with it or just refuse to play in them.

[ArtK78]

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 have 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.
     
    

   

Why do you assume that the opponents' methods do not include a penalty double of 1NT? They certainly never said that was the case at the table.

 

I find it hard to believe that the opponents' methods do not include a penalty double of a WEAK 1NT opening. They are certainly entitled to play whatever method they choose, but any defensive method against a weak 1NT (and certainly against a 10-12 1NT) that does not include a penalty double is unplayable. That would certainly explain the hesitation. The cynic might argue that the method is somewhat more playable if hesitations are taken into account.

[pigpenz]

I find it hard to believe that the opponents' methods do not include a penalty double of a WEAK 1NT opening. They are certainly entitled to play whatever method they choose, but any defensive method against a weak 1NT (and certainly against a 10-12 1NT) that does not include a penalty double is unplayable. That would certainly explain the hesitation. The cynic might argue that the method is somewhat more playable if hesitations are taken into account.

I agree but there are verying degrees of the quality of the players you run against in the ACBL BBO games. The person who has won the ACBL title the last 2 years plays RKC blackwood but does not play queen asking bids, to me that is just as bad as not playing a penalty double of 10-12 NT.

 

Ask yourself how many times in these games have you seen players ask for aces with a void?

 

you pay your $1 or you can play in or direct your own free games. The ACBL games are a money maker for BBO and they are most likely not about to change the format.

 

But some where something has to change cause I would think it would be great if the ACBL could move into the online era for sectionals and maybe possibly regionals.

[A2003]

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.

 

I agree this ACBL tournament is not a serious game.

First of all, this is speedball tournament, designed for fast and fun.

The players gets uncomfortable when you take time to think on complex hands or situation.

Calling TD for no reasons when you have ample time left.

This applies pressure on the players when playing the hand.

Thought process for playing is disturbed by this.

Wasting time in typing.

 

ACBL does not even recognize all the points earned towards your ACBL ranking.

Only one third counts to your ACBL ranking.

 

You only play 4 teams out of 100. So, there is a lot of luck involved.

One team got 68% and placed 5th in the section.

Average of 20 boards are adjusted for scores by TD in each tournament.

[pigpenz]

I agree this ACBL tournament is not a serious game.

I would tend to think that there would be alot of people who would not agree with your opinion of that. They (BBO) runs 2board rounds 15 min round games opp the speedballs, they have become almost extinct since the advent of the speedball games.

 

You dont have to pay $1 to have fun, but yet there are people who spend almost $300 month playing ACBL BBO speedball games. The main reason I am sure is for the points they win.

 

I myself would be happy to pay sectional fees to play in online acbl sanctioned full length pairs events.

[hotShot]

The laws say:

Players should not hesitate without a bridge reason.

Opps are allowed to draw conclusions from this hesitation.

Hesitating to lead opps to wrong conclusions is cheating.

 

His Partner is not allowed to use informations other than bidding, play and agreements.

Drawing conclusions from partners hesitation is not allowed.

 

A possible online reguation would be:

Don't draw conclusions from opps hesitation, because they often have no bridge reason.

And the hesitating player might not have control over the delay.

 

But hesitators partner is a completely different issue. If a meaningless hesitation occurs than using the UI (that was in fact not given) will lead to bad result for the offending side. So it is punished with a bad score.

But if a meaningful hesitation occurs it's riskfree to use it.

Thats not fair.

[blackshoe]

Meh. "That was in fact not given" is an overbid. What you should say is that while a BIT conveys UI via inference (partner hesitated because he was thinking of doing X), it may be that the inference turns out to be incorrect. That's all well and good, but it doesn't matter. If a player infers something from his partner's BIT (or any other extraneous action) he is not permitted to take advantage of that inference.

[barmar]

The hesitation laws are intended to be statistically fail-safe for the NOS. If partner hesitates for a non-bridge reason, but you make a bridge-related inference from it, and act on that inference, you'll probably get a bad result, and the opponents won't be damaged. If, on the other hand, he did have a bridge reason for the hesitation, you infer it correctly, act on that inference, and the opponents are damaged as a result, the Laws allow the TD to adjust the score and even penalize you if appropriate.

 

So whatever the reason for the hesitation, you should not take advantage of it.

 

In ArtK78's response above, he says that when balancing over a strong NT, there's usually a valid bridge reason to bid. However, you still have to be careful when there's UI. Just because bridge logic agrees with what the UI suggests doesn't mean you're off the hook. There has to be no other logical alternative. Suppose 60-70% of players of your calibre would balance, while 30-40% would pass, then both are LAs; you must choose the one that is not suggested by the UI. It doesn't matter that you would have gone with the majority regardless of the hesitation -- UI sometimes restricts your choices, unfortunately.

[pigpenz]

The hesitation laws are intended to be statistically fail-safe for the NOS. If partner hesitates for a non-bridge reason, but you make a bridge-related inference from it, and act on that inference, you'll probably get a bad result, and the opponents won't be damaged. If, on the other hand, he did have a bridge reason for the hesitation, you infer it correctly, act on that inference, and the opponents are damaged as a result, the Laws allow the TD to adjust the score and even penalize you if appropriate.

 

So whatever the reason for the hesitation, you should not take advantage of it.

 

In ArtK78's response above, he says that when balancing over a strong NT, there's usually a valid bridge reason to bid. However, you still have to be careful when there's UI. Just because bridge logic agrees with what the UI suggests doesn't mean you're off the hook. There has to be no other logical alternative. Suppose 60-70% of players of your calibre would balance, while 30-40% would pass, then both are LAs; you must choose the one that is not suggested by the UI. It doesn't matter that you would have gone with the majority regardless of the hesitation -- UI sometimes restricts your choices, unfortunately.

yes just check out some of the cases from the NABC appeal cases

 

http://bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Duplicate...ebook/index.htm

 

in most cases once there is a hesitation you box your side in.

[analysismi]

This depends on their card really. Lots of teams haven't discussed their weak NT defense (although they should). If all they have marked down is DONT, this auction almost makes sense. No big point bid for big hand, and weak hand has to balance so makes clubs + another bid with 5-4 distro.

 

And the fact that you commented on the hesitation before it even (possibly) disadvantaged you tells me you may be too sensitive to this anyway.

[A2003]

And the fact that you commented on the hesitation before it even (possibly) disadvantaged you tells  me you may be too sensitive to this anyway.

 

This board was played on July 21st, 11pm, board 8, ACBL speedball tournament.

[pigpenz]

And the fact that you commented on the hesitation before it even (possibly) disadvantaged you tells  me you may be too sensitive to this anyway.

I dont think he is too sensitive for commenting on it, it should have the same effect as calling a TD and having him stand over the hesitators shoulder while he bids....now the whole table knows about....granted online bridge probablly no one cares but an ethical player would not take advantage of the hesitation.

 

 

to me just making the comment that there was a long hesitation should be just the same as calling the TD, in online speedball games by the time you call the TD the round is over with.

[1eyedjack]

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

<SNIP>

I've seen this suggestion discussed a number of times.

I think that it is problematic.

<SNIP>

There seems to be a strong case for either point of view. In such situations the best solution might be to introduce a software feature that allows the table/tourney host to enable or disable that feature at his discretion. Then players can vote with their feet if they happen to dislike the consequences of that choice.