to do or undo

[meown]

Hello, i had a problem in a tournament the other night. I had rather a nice hand: ♠AKxx; ♥KQxxx;♦Qx;♣Kxx.

I opened 1♦; pass, my p1♠ when i realised to my horror that i had mis-clicked. I asked for undo, and opps kindly allowed.

So, i opened 1♥, pass, 2NT from p! when i realised to my chagrin that i had once again mis-clicked and opened 1♦!!!

Now comes the dilemma i found myself in - could i bid 3♠ - or do what i consider the ethical thing, and bid 3nt....? I did this, and we went 1 down, but 4♠ is cold, for an extra trick.

Your comments please. No, i am not appealing - all my own stupid fault :(

\

[Lanor Fow]

If you want an opinion on the legalities of the situation, then you shouldn't have been allowed to take back your bid after your partner has called. As both your relisations of the misclick were after your partner had called, legally, neither can be retracted.

 

The factthat you realised you hadn't opened 1H the second time doesn't seem to be based on UI, so you shoudl be allowed to know. The fact that partner has spades is UI, and so spade bids look to be suggested by the UI. In my opinion 3NT seems to be a logical alternative, so I'd rule 4S back to 3NT.

 

That said, assuming a slightly different situation, had you realised before your P called, you would have been allowed to change it if you attempted to do so as soon as you realised your error (under law 25). The law is silent on what happens if you replace your unintended call with another unintended call. I imagine law 25 can be applied again and another correct allowed.

[billw55]

Far better to do the ethical thing. Losing one board is meaningless, even if it costs you first place it will soon be forgotten. But your conscience may (should) nag you for a long time if you bid spades.

[blackshoe]

What does 1♦-2NT show? If it shows a GF, then there is no LA to 3NT. If it shows an invitational hand, then it seems to me 3NT and pass are LAs. In the latter case, does the UI (that partner has four or more spades) demonstrably suggest one LA over the other? Partner might not have anything in diamonds, since he thinks we do, so perhaps it suggests pass. OTOH, our 4-4 fit in spades might be worth an extra trick, so perhaps it suggests 3NT. Seems to me there's no clear suggestion of one over the other, in which case either may be chosen.

 

All this would have been avoided, of course, if the OP had simply bid 2♠ instead of asking for an undo to which, as has been pointed out, he was not entitled anyway.

[blackshoe]

Far better to do the ethical thing. Losing one board is meaningless, even if it costs you first place it will soon be forgotten. But your conscience may (should) nag you for a long time if you bid spades.

You mean "far better to go beyond what the laws (and hence the ethics of the game) require of you". Maybe you're right, and anyway this question (what is ethically required of a player who has UI) will never be resolved satisfactorily. My opinion, of course. B-)

[richlp]

Hello, i had a problem in a tournament the other night. I had rather a nice hand: ♠AKxx; ♥KQxxx;♦Qx;♣Kxx.

I opened 1♦; pass, my p1♠ when i realised to my horror that i had mis-clicked. I asked for undo, and opps kindly allowed.

So, i opened 1♥, pass, 2NT from p! when i realised to my chagrin that i had once again mis-clicked and opened 1♦!!!

Now comes the dilemma i found myself in - could i bid 3♠ - or do what i consider the ethical thing, and bid 3nt....? I did this, and we went 1 down, but 4♠ is cold, for an extra trick.

Your comments please. No, i am not appealing - all my own stupid fault :(

\

 

You open 1♦ and partner bid 1♠. You realize your mistake and, given a second chance, mistakenly repeat the same mis-bid. Now your partner makes a different bid???????

 

What did I miss?

[meown]

You open 1♦ and partner bid 1♠. You realize your mistake and, given a second chance, mistakenly repeat the same mis-bid. Now your partner makes a different bid???????

 

What did I miss?

 

 

lol - you missed nothing! But the fact remains, that is what happened, and i had to deal with the situation - and quickly, as it was a tournament. I think, if there had been time, my best option at that point would have been to call the TD and ask for a ruling?

[Vampyr]

All this would have been avoided, of course, if the OP had simply bid 2♠ instead of asking for an undo to which, as has been pointed out, he was not entitled anyway.

 

This is nonsense. The OP was playing online. It is permitted for him to ask for an undo and permitted for the opponents to consent. Do you disagree? Well, it happened! If people want to uphold the fiction that BBO has some similarity to bridge, BBO should make actions which are contrary to the Laws impossible. Also, my guess is that this happens all the time, so you are putting yourself at a disadvantage if you voluntarily decide to conform to the Laws.

 

Partner, by the way, is a cheat.

[blackshoe]

Nonsense? Nonsense yourself. I didn't say he couldn't get an undo, I said he wasn't entitled to it - and IMO he wasn't, whatever you want to say about "online rules". As to putting yourself at a disadvantage, yeah, so? Life's tough sometimes.

 

The fact remains that if meown had simply bid 2♠ instead of (reflexively?) asking for an undo, there would have been no problem.

 

Appealing would have been pointless.

[Vampyr]

Nonsense? Nonsense yourself. I didn't say he couldn't get an undo, I said he wasn't entitled to it - and IMO he wasn't

 

And how is the player supposed to know this?

[GreenMan]

And how is the player supposed to know this?

 

I suppose people who think they're entitled to everything under the sun might have trouble with the idea. But in fact if you ask for an undo in a tournament, or FTM at any table where the other players are strangers, the opps are doing you a courtesy by approving it; they are under no obligation. The fact that that isn't common knowledge is a sad statement on the times.

[Vampyr]

I suppose people who think they're entitled to everything under the sun might have trouble with the idea. But in fact if you ask for an undo in a tournament, or FTM at any table where the other players are strangers, the opps are doing you a courtesy by approving it; they are under no obligation. The fact that that isn't common knowledge is a sad statement on the times.

 

I don't think it's sad at all. Players are not obligated to know the Laws in detail; that's what the director is there for. And if BBO wanted to acknowledge L25A, it would be a simple matter of allowing no changes of call that are not mediated by a director. Since this is not the way it is done, that Law does not exist on BBO, and pretending that it does really doesn't help when discussing problems that are caused by undoes.

[blackshoe]

I was once told, by the man who then managed microsoft's bridge website, that he didn't care what the laws say, he wasn't going to have the programming changed to implement a law that at the time the programming prevented a TD from applying.

 

What Vampyr is saying is that the WBF is irrelevant to online bridge - the laws of the game are whatever the programmer decides they are. I suppose she has a point, but I don't have to like it - and I don't.

[barmar]

This isn't just the programmer's decision. When someone creates a tournament in BBO, they get to choose whether to allow undoes. If the TO chooses to allow them, he's the one ignoring the laws, just like tournaments that prohibit psyches.

 

You could say that BBO shouldn't facilitate violations of the laws. You're entitled to your opinion, but we've chosen to leave this decision to the TO.

 

FYI, we don't allow undoes in any of the tourneys managed by BBO.

[blackshoe]

I think that when someone develops software that is supposed to be an online implementation of an offline game ought to build the software such that if something can happen online, an online TD can apply the relevant laws. I'm tempted to suggest the software should also allow to happen online anything that can happen offline (such as bids out of turn). To the best of my knowledge, no publisher of online bridge has done that. Instead, publishers have chosen to preclude some actions (revokes, bids or plays out of turn) and failed to allow for handling of others (inadvertent bids, i.e. mis-clicks) according to the laws. In effect, online bridge is not "duplicate bridge" as defined by the laws published by the WBF and the ACBL. It's a very different game, defined by the software that implements it and the customs that have grown up around it. Fair enough, but I don't know what the "laws of online bridge" are, so I'm going to try to remember to refrain, in future, from answering questions like "what should the ruling be?" or "what should I have done?" where online bridge is concerned.

[barmar]

It's a very slightly different game

FYP

[blackshoe]

If I'd meant to say it was a slightly different game I'd have said that. I didn't.

[barmar]

If I'd meant to say it was a slightly different game I'd have said that. I didn't.

Obviously. I was just using a rhetorical technique to express my disagreement with your opinion.

[uday]

We shouldn't refrain from questioning :) it is fun, and sometimes we learn something from Blackshoe and the other people who actually seem to understand the Laws.

 

It would be nice come to consensus on a set of laws & guidelines for online that are useful and practical yet devoid of built-in promotions/protections for some organization or the other.

 

There is a 12-year-old document (70 pages, PDF format) here PDF document from the WBF that asserts the laws of online bridge. Not great bedside reading. Or perhaps it is :) The relevance of this document to existing forms of online bridge ( here, at other sites, on mobile devices ) is unclear to me.

 

This page from the WBF says

Bridge must be played in accordance with a set of Laws established by the World Bridge Federation.

 

My feeling, as someone who has worked for a long time with ACBL and just as long, if less deeply, with the WBF and a few other NBOs, is that it won't be easy to get people to put something together that would be good for all of us. There seem to be a number of agendas out there, some kosher and some seemingly less so (to me, anyway). I just don't know how we're going to get to a point where some august and universally-recognized body can discuss things like "Best Hand Robot Bridge" or "Bridge Bingo" with us without one side or the other rolling their eyes. Or even how to handle unsupervised play in the Main Bridge Club ( which i suppose is more like kitchen bridge than tourney bridge ).

 

I don't know a lot about how these things happen today. We're not very well plugged into the WBF, or any other NBO except perhaps the ACBL. What I do know is that there seems to be little practical assistance or advice that comes our way. So we make stuff up ( er, do what seems to be best for our customers and our game ) given our resources and desires as we go along. What else can we do? I want more people playing more bridge, even if the bridge they play has to be deemed a bastardized version of the game. I'd rather raise a mongrel than attend a funeral. I'd love some help. Who'd help?

 

Did i hijack this thread? Sorry if so.

 

U

[blackshoe]

You have a valuable perspective, Uday, so if you hijacked the thread, good. B-)

 

I don't have any answers, I'm afraid. I'm not plugged into anybody, I just read the law book and try to explain to people what it says. I do know that at one time, at least, there was some interest at the level of the WBFLC in laws for online bridge. The document you linked was supposed to be a first effort - there was supposed to be an effort to improve it going on. There appears to be some problem with that - I found the following in the minutes of the WBFLC for 2012 and 2013, available on the WBF website:

 

From 2012: There was discussion concerning the Laws for Online Bridge. With the issue of WBF Masterpoints proposed it is agreed that play must confirm to authorized laws and procedures. Mr Kooijman will join Mr Wignall in progressing the means for this.

From 2013: Mr Kooijman reported that no real progress had been made in respect to the Laws of On-line Bridge and that matters were still pending.

 

Ton Kooijman is Chairman of the WBFLC. John Wignall is a member of the committee. I suppose if you want to know what's going on, or possibly to have a voice in whatever they come up with, you should write to Mr. Kooijman. The WBF's Committee Contact Form defaults to having his name in the "to" field.

[Vampyr]

I want more people playing more bridge, even if the bridge they play has to be deemed a bastardized version of the game. I'd rather raise a mongrel than attend a funeral.

 

I agree with this attitude. If online bridge brings people to the game, great. The fact that what they play online is different does not seem very important. They will learn about the Laws when they attend a club or tournament.

 

I don't see why anyone should be bothered by this.

[nige1]

IMO the on-line game is the main hope for Bridge. The creators of on-line bridge seem to realize that bridge is a game intended for the enjoyment of players rather than the amusement of directors. Most of their simplifications improve on the face-to-face game. For example, full-disclosure, claim-protocol, and the prevention of detectable mechanical errors. They do a great job that bodes well for the future of Bridge, as soon as face-to-face law-makers can catch up.

[barmar]

I think I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge should not prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, and bid/play out of turn. I hope no one considers these seriously. Infractions are not necessary parts of the game, they're just something we have to deal with if they occur, so the Laws say how to address them. Even though players can sometimes take strategic advantage of them (e.g. you've wrong-sided a contract, but then the opponent leads out of turn, allowing you to right-side it and make the contract), I think people generally would say the game would be better if we never had these infractions. And it would stilll be essentially the same game (preventing these errors is arguably less bastardization than robot tourneys).

[RMB1]

I think I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge should not prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, and bid/play out of turn. I hope no one considers these seriously. ...

 

+1

 

I do not want online bridge to model a game play with bits of cardboard, I want online bridge to model an idealised form of the game which is played according to the rules.

[jeffford76]

I think I've occasionally seen people suggest that online bridge should not prevent mechanical errors like revokes, insufficient bids, and bid/play out of turn.

 

I think it's just one person that suggests it a lot, not that lots of people want it. I agree it's a bad idea.

 

The reason no one took the first stab at online bridge laws even remotely seriously is because all the laws about what to do to fix problems that aren't actually problems in online bridge were still there.