Directors Ruling

[NotButter]

I just finished playing in the Indy (Details of which indy and who directed deleted by administrator as not germane to the question) and am very concerned about a ruling. Perhaps some of you can enlighten me.

 

NS vul

IMPs

Dealer North.

 

North: T62, KQ975, 86, A54

West: KQ983,6, Q74, KQT7

East: J74, T4, AKJ952, 63

South: A5, AJ832, T3, J982

 

North dealt and passed and East opened 2D alerted and explained a weak. South overcalled 2H and West, after perhaps 45 seconds passed. North raised to 3H and East bid 4D.

 

At this stage I (south) called the Director as I beleived East was acting on UI.

 

The Director dismissedmy protests and said East could do whatever they pleased - even though West had hesitated for so long.

 

Your opinions please?

 

Nick

Sydney

[inquiry]

After obtaining the facts (was there a long hesitation. was WEST's "red light on", etc), I think I would rule UI had occurred. East has a perfectly normal 2♦ bid and no reason to assume that a 4♦ would be correct.

 

However, having said that, I will also say that each TD gets to make their own ruling, and we really should accept that and move on. IF you find a TD is not to your suiting, find other tournments to play in. I heard yesterday that there are 200 active TD's providing a lot of playing opportunities. There are quite a few tournments I will not (or never) play in again. The main reason I avoid certain tourney's is the directors tendency to add time to an already too long per round clock. I like 7 minutes per board, and will play 8 minutes per board, but will not intentionally signup for longer times per round. Nor will I play in unclocked events if I can help it. I suggest if TD ruling are important to you, find TD's who make rulings more accustom to your expectations.

 

Ben

 

BTW, I edited the original post, as mentioning the TD is unnecessary to ask the question, and because the TD in question is not here to defend the ruling or the reason behind it. For instance your opponent may have said he had bad connection and delay was due to that. Maybe there is evidence that East bids like this all the time. Who knows?

[hrothgar]

Regardless of whether West had connection problems, East acted baed on UI.

East showed his hand with the 2D and has no reason to bid again at the 4 level.

 

With this said and done, my impression is that few directors of Online tournaments are sufficiently versed with the Laws to handle UI issues. I've never seen adjustments, even in far more eggregious cases...

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

Would the UI have demonstrably suggested support? Other possible reasons to tank are penalty double or a black one-suiter. These may be low probability, but every ruling must address the 'demonstrably suggest' issue explicity. I wish I had a good percentage to go with. Is 80% likely = demonstrably? 95%?

 

Later,

Dan

[spwdo]

Regardless of whether West had connection problems, East acted baed on UI.

East showed his hand with the 2D and has no reason to bid again at the 4 level.

 

With this said and done, my impression is that few directors of Online tournaments are sufficiently versed with the Laws to handle UI issues. I've never seen adjustments, even in far more eggregious cases...

hi,

 

how can u based upon time, its always one word against the other, and sure there are tds that rule if they witnessed it, know i woud if i was sure this was not stuck or disconnected player

 

 

 

 

spwdo

[luis]

This an easy case of UI, even without enough evidence there's no reason to bid 4d other than UI.

Maybe TDs that know the rules or are official TDs should be given a "TD star" or something so you know who is ruling when you register for a tournament.

[McBruce]

(from Law 73)

F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent:

 

1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information

If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score.

A player who pre-empts with his first bid needs an exceptional hand to make another call when partner passes. Otherwise pass is always a logical alternative action when partner tanks. There's no question here that the opener does not have an unusual hand that should take action alone.

 

But we don't have the whole story here. Was it clear to everyone that there was a hesitation before the player passed? Is it possible that the player was experiencing net delay (or that you were)? Did you make it clear to the TD that there was a long hesitation? How did the auction continue from that point?

 

Another point is germane here:

 

(Law 16)

A. Extraneous Information from Partner

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

1. When Such Information Is Given

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available, and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit (see Appendix), immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

 

The ACBL (with rather poor judgment, I think) has prohibited this 'reserving the rights' described here, but it is allowed in most of the rest of the world. Online, since BBO makes no overall rules for Directors, I think that each individual Director is in themselves a 'sponsoring organization' as described in the Laws, and can allow this sort of thing. Activating this Law allows play to continue and reduces the necessity for TD calls in cases where the UI turns out to have little or no effect on the result.

 

In other words, the poster could have told the opponents that he reserved the right to summon the Director later and given the opponents the chance to call if they dispute that there was a hesitation. Assuming all agree that there was a hesitation, no TD is required; you bid and play the rest of the deal and the side with the hearts can call at the end if they feel that there was damage. It is so much easier this way: you play the deal to the end, call the TD if you need to, and say "on Board 5 West's first pass, we all agree, was after a long pause. Could you review the hand and adjust the score if you feel it necessary?" That's it. Off you go to the next deal. The TD looks at it when he has time and adjusts if necessary.

[spwdo]

This an easy case of UI, even without enough evidence there's no reason to bid 4d other than UI.

Maybe TDs that know the rules or are official TDs should be given a "TD star" or something so you know who is ruling when you register for a tournament.

hi,

 

 

well not sure bout this .knwing some laws/wich laws?? acbl?? uk rules?? still doesnt mean anything, know several uncertified tds doing a good job based upon experience and tablefairness and im very sure certified tds in real life have a lot to learn when they start hosting online.

 

In this case its not 100% for me. Maybe to a wordclass player its obvuis. Maybe player in question wanting to push opps into game, if u td one u see a lot of weird bids, some are questionable to say least, some are puur casino players. bidding whatever they "hope" for and if go down u see 2 red dots , this happens in pairs tourney, so for sure in indy.

 

 

With this all said and done, i woud first talk to player in question asking WHY he bid this way.

How did the rest of the bidding go, what contract/result was reached? all things to consider i guess.

 

And it is always another story when u are involved yourself, pressurre/other calls/adjust to be made and so on. Not easy beeing a td.And this is we all agree i think a long story/discussion when it is happening. Can only say what i think i woud do.

 

spwdo

[Gweny]

;) Friends...

One person who play Fishy on regular basis is all time calling me for this same problem - delays in bidding. I watch Cavendish last week and notice extremely long delays and not 1 time do i hear comentators raise hue and cry and claim this is ui. No I personally do not make adjustments base on what opp percieves is delay in bidding. Since I am not personally in table to observe this delay how may i adjust for it?

 

In online environment I ask how do you tell this is intentional delay vs some form of internet delay, stuck player, or host of other connection relate problems. Many of you is ready to assume it is somehow lack of intelligence or learning of rules by td when it actually come down to common sense for we no idea when some person SEE what bid is make, and we no idea how long it take for this person bid to register at all other players (opps in particular) screens.

 

You can ask any td how many time they get call from some player claiming opps is playing slow when in fact it is this person who is lagging.

 

A little consideration please gentlemen unless you can tell me how long is this "hesitation" in light of vagrities of internet connections from all points of globe.

[McBruce]

Online there are two problems with tempo: slow play in general, which some poor sports use to try to get no result on a board on which they are in trouble, and hesitations before bids. I don't think it is right to use net lag as an excuse when a hesitation happens. If, as in this case, the partner of the hesitator has made a very unusual call that works and that the UI might have suggested would work, an adjustment is called for. The difficult part is getting agreement that there was a break in tempo, especially online, because we have the constant factor of net lag. But if there is 45 seconds without a red dot or a red name, that is a clear break in tempo and the Laws dictate what to do.

 

Players who call the Director often on hesitations perhaps should lighten up, but each call deserves a look. Not fair to let people communicate by tempo breaks.

 

spwdo:

well not sure bout this .knwing some laws/wich laws?? acbl?? uk rules?? still doesnt mean anything, know several uncertified tds doing a good job based upon experience and tablefairness and im very sure certified tds in real life have a lot to learn when they start hosting online.

 

The Laws I quoted are the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, which you can access online here. I don't think it is "table fairness" to arrive at the table and dismiss something as possible net lag. Look at the partner of the hesitator and see if he did something unusual. If so, don't let him gain an advantage from his partner's hesitation!

[spwdo]

spwdo:

well not sure bout this .knwing some laws/wich laws?? acbl?? uk rules?? still doesnt mean anything, know several uncertified tds doing a good job based upon experience and tablefairness and im very sure certified tds in real life have a lot to learn when they start hosting online.

 

The Laws I quoted are the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, which you can access online here. I don't think it is "table fairness" to arrive at the table and dismiss something as possible net lag. Look at the partner of the hesitator and see if he did something unusual. If so, don't let him gain an advantage from his partner's hesitation!

yes isnt that tablefairness? wasnt ment as replie on you mc bruce but since u think it is.Im just saying and meaning what i say.I played online in certified td events where it was obvuis that they had a lot to learn, i saw here every td almost beeing questioned one time or the other ,certified /non certified all been questioned

 

 

i was not saying that td shoud done this or that. i just saying that i needed to have more info that given here before i decide and that is wasnt a claer cut case as luis pointed out .

 

As for those rules i was talking more about alerts and all cause i replied couple of times in that topic started by clausdenmark,(sorry confused a bit) laws of duplicate bridge are healthy guidelines to follow.

 

I didnt deceided either way on this and my tablefairness wasnt appying upon what the td ruled in this case.Again i need all info and probaly have to be in there myself to see if this was really a claer cut of UI.

 

marc

[NotButter]

re: my original post:

 

There was no evidence of connection difficulties (red dot, although this doesnt always occur). Moreover, West didnt say anything like: "sorry phone", "Sorry, front door bell", "sorry, had to make a comfort stop" etc. For the rest of the two boards their conneciton and tempo seemed normal.

 

I suppose what concerned me was that the Director did not want to entertain my suggestion of UI and said (rightly) that West was allowed to think and pass and (wrongly, in my opinion), that East was entitled to bid what they liked, irrational though it appears looking at their hand.

 

While we werent playing for the world championships, it was disappointing to receive a ruling that appeared to condone an action not in the spirit of the Laws.

 

NickF

Sydney

[inquiry]

Well, like I said, if I have been directing I would have ruled UI. However, I believe there is a misconception about UI.

 

For there to be a adjusted score, the hesitation has to suggest one action more likely than the other. Maybe partner was thinking about bidding 2NT, maybe thinking about bidding his own, long, weak suit, maybe thiniking about making a penatly (or cooperative dobble). Since it was an indy, maybe was reading his partners profile to figure out what his partner would take any such bid as.

 

I have to admit, the one thing I would never expect partner to have on such an auction after a hestiation is a fair hand and three card SUPPORT for my suit. I expect my partners to raise with those hands. So it is not entirely clear that the hesisitation suggest bidding again in general. However on this hand, one thing is clear, it suggested partner has some HCP, making bidding again with such a good suit more likely. So again, in this instance I would have ruled UI and adjusted the score.

 

ben

[luis]

This an easy case of UI, even without enough evidence there's no reason to bid 4d other than UI.

Maybe TDs that know the rules or are official TDs should be given a "TD star" or something so you know who is ruling when you register for a tournament.

hi,

 

 

well not sure bout this .knwing some laws/wich laws?? acbl?? uk rules?? still doesnt mean anything, know several uncertified tds doing a good job based upon experience and tablefairness and im very sure certified tds in real life have a lot to learn when they start hosting online.

 

In this case its not 100% for me. Maybe to a wordclass player its obvuis. Maybe player in question wanting to push opps into game, if u td one u see a lot of weird bids, some are questionable to say least, some are puur casino players. bidding whatever they "hope" for and if go down u see 2 red dots , this happens in pairs tourney, so for sure in indy.

 

 

With this all said and done, i woud first talk to player in question asking WHY he bid this way.

How did the rest of the bidding go, what contract/result was reached? all things to consider i guess.

 

And it is always another story when u are involved yourself, pressurre/other calls/adjust to be made and so on. Not easy beeing a td.And this is we all agree i think a long story/discussion when it is happening. Can only say what i think i woud do.

 

spwdo

Spwdo:

Believe me, This is an egregious case of using UI. I completely understand the player may not have realized he was using UI but no matter the lag or whatever the 4d bid is going to automatically trigger an adjustment in case of damage because there're no bridge reasons to bid 4d.

[JRG]

:blink: Friends...

One person who play Fishy on regular basis is all time calling me for this same problem - delays in bidding. I watch Cavendish last week and notice extremely long delays and not 1 time do i hear comentators raise hue and cry and claim this is ui. No I personally do not make adjustments base on what opp percieves is delay in bidding. Since I am not personally in table to observe this delay how may i adjust for it?

 

In online environment I ask how do you tell this is intentional delay vs some form of internet delay, stuck player, or host of other connection relate problems. Many of you is ready to assume it is somehow lack of intelligence or learning of rules by td when it actually come down to common sense for we no idea when some person SEE what bid is make, and we no idea how long it take for this person bid to register at all other players (opps in particular) screens.

 

You can ask any td how many time they get call from some player claiming opps is playing slow when in fact it is this person who is lagging.

 

A little consideration please gentlemen unless you can tell me how long is this "hesitation" in light of vagrities of internet connections from all points of globe.

What you saw in the Cavendish does not, for the most part, apply.

 

Diagonal screens are used at the table in the Cavendish (and I think all world championships and many top-level team competitions). This means that when a player takes a long time, you do not really know whether it was your partner or the opponent who took the time (also, if one player took a little bit of extra time but the other on the same side of the screen was quick, only the two of them would know everything was not in tempo.

 

The reason I said "for the most part" is that there are still some situations where extra time is taken and everyone at the table knows who was taking the time (because there is only one player on that side of the screen with any reason to be taking extra time).

[Shrike]

Unfortunately, McBruce has quoted a version of the Laws that is no longer in effect. In 1997, the word "reasonably" in Law 16 ("could reasonably have been suggested") was changed to "demonstrably." The change was intended to ensure that, for there to be an adjustment, there be a close connection between the UI and the action complained of -- a simple bridge argument, not something subtle and complex.

 

A similar change was made to Law 73F.

 

In my opinion, under the Laws now in effect the original posting is not an easy case. Assuming arguendo that a hesitation was unmistakeable and that no other reason (red dot, e.g.) appeared, East had UI -- but what did it demonstrably suggest? Clearly partner had a problem, but that problem was not necessarily whether to raise.

 

Double is pretty obviously not allowable -- it caters to all of the problem hands that partner is now more likely than before his hesitation to hold. 4D, on the other hand, is not so obvious; it will not fare well when partner was considering a bid in spades or clubs. If I were the director I think I would disallow 4D, because much of the time that partner tanks it is with good diamonds (in practice it's always good offense, maybe not a big diamond fit on this hand), but I could possibly be convinced otherwise. Hence, I think that a decision either way on this one is supportable, if not necessarily best. As a corollary to the decision's being at least arguably close, very few TDs would consider a penalty under Law 73. (These are imposed quite rarely.)

 

On the other hand, under the old Laws I think an adjustment would have been clearer, because the connection is strong enough to satisfy the "reasonably suggested" test without too much argument.

[bambi1]

Believe me, This is an egregious case of using UI. I completely understand the player may not have realized he was using UI but no matter the lag or whatever the 4d bid is going to automatically trigger an adjustment in case of damage because there're no bridge reasons to bid 4d.

Excellent Post. I agree 100%. Definite case of UI, intentional or unintentional.

[McBruce]

Shrike:

Unfortunately, McBruce has quoted a version of the Laws that is no longer in effect. In 1997, the word "reasonably" in Law 16 ("could reasonably have been suggested") was changed to "demonstrably." The change was intended to ensure that, for there to be an adjustment, there be a close connection between the UI and the action complained of -- a simple bridge argument, not something subtle and complex.

 

A similar change was made to Law 73F.

 

Thanks Shrike for the correction. I was aware that there were changes but haven't been able to find them online. Does anyone have an link to either the latest version online or a list of the most recent changes?

[Frosty]

I must concur with Gweny because online bridge is a whole different animal. As TD, or as kibitzer, or as a poster on this forum, we all lack the ability to do more than GUESS the reason for delay at any table during any hand.

 

I didn't see any reference as to the expertise of the player involved, but I've seen crazier bids out of players who listed their skill level as advanced/expert. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that this may simply have been a player with poor skills. Without player history or ranking, the TD/kibitzer/poster cannot assume that any this particular player has sufficient skills to even bid correctly.

 

I stand in awe of those of you whose expertise and knowledge of the game/rules vastly exceeds my own, however, I believe that common sense has to play some part. MANY players in these BBO tourneys do not have the skills they claim on their profiles. MANY players have NO idea what UI is or how you get it (or if its even contagious, LOL). MANY, MANY players have bad connections that cannot be detected by the TD OR the other players. Some even get phone calls in the middle of bidding (shocking, I know) or experience the occassional bidding assistance of the family cat tripping across the keyboard, (in my case the dog, but he's a terrible typist).

 

Given that there is much that must be left to speculation in this format of Bridge tournament, it is important to remember this is a mixed bag of skills, playing systems, languages and personalities..... AND, this is a GAME!!!! The TD is responsible to gather as much information as possible, but the TD is not omnicient. Skilled at directing and knowledgeable of bridge law or not, the community of volunteer TD's is gifted with common sense, and with few exceptions, the wisdom to realize that if you don't know for sure, and can't find out, you don't make assumptions.

 

I believe in the adage that a major cause of stress is unrealistic expectations. Perhaps too much energy is spent on the "possibility" of rule infractions given the nature and limitations of online gaming.

 

 

Frosty ;)

[spwdo]

Spwdo:

Believe me,  This is an egregious case of using UI. I completely understand the player may not have realized he was using UI but no matter the lag or whatever the 4d bid is going to automatically trigger an adjustment in case of damage because there're no bridge reasons to bid 4d.

hi,

 

first say marc please if possible when something is directly addressed at me.

 

second.I just want to claerify that first i dint read the second post of nobutter prior to asnwering.

thirdley, is easy to explain this when u rule when u dealing with players knowing the concept, if we dealing here with smart ppl, all he had to do was wait another minute , say to the room "thinking" and his partner for sure woud enter bidding.

 

I deal with a minor % of ppl insisting spych bids have to be alerted, bid like crazy to not miss anything, leave when they down 3/4/5/6 and more.

 

I just say that i woud open conversation first asking "why" this bid, if this is UI,not questioned it isnt but dealing with this because i know what can happen(some ppl go to the xtrems when they dont like a rulling that is claer but not know to them) .

 

So UI it is, what can the player say for himself , when u ask why this bid?

probaly nothing and he ignores you or a lame excuse after wich u have to make an unquestionable adjust because he gonna make in whatever he says or doesnt say a claercut case for the td.

 

Im not questioning the case im just thinking after the cold/not understood from this player adjust, things to consider for me, not things to consider from a players view i agree.

 

marc

[Posleda]

Offline bridge has a screen accross table to avoid UI from partner's hesitation. Online there could be different screens for every player. Each player receives LHO's and partner's bid at the same moment - this could be done without hard programming effort.

 

Its not a good idea to delay all three bids:

 

1) Opp's hesitation is AI.

2) Wastes time to consider partner's bid.

 

Do you agree ?

 

Dusan

[keylime]

I'd like the standard implemented recently by the ACBL/USBF for screens - basically, if the bidding tray within 15 seconds is passed to and fro, then there doesn't exist a chance for UI. It also qualifies that certain sequences are more sensitive to time (like jump preempts, skip bids, do I make a slam try, you get the idea). This would greatly aid matters, because now if there's a discernible pause there is a built-in protection.