SB starts summoning

[Cyberyeti]

Next you're going to tell me that had partner instead of giving notrump ranges said "we play a strong club", with 6 clubs and an 11 count I now have to open 1♣ rather than 2 because I might have forgotten I'm playing a strong club not something else ? It gets to a ridiculous place fast if this case IS an issue, I think you're assumed to know basic parts of your own system.

[blackshoe]

No, not necessary. All you need to decide in order to adjust is that North could have been aware that her "extraneous remark" could well damage the non-offenders.

Sure. But then, anyone could be aware of just about anything. So do we always rule against a player who finds himself in this situation?

[barmar]

Sure. But then, anyone could be aware of just about anything. So do we always rule against a player who finds himself in this situation?

That seems to be SB's general understanding, which I've been arguing against for years.

 

Except, I suspect, when it is on the offending side. Then I'm sure we'd have to use a more conservative interpretation of "could have been aware".

[mycroft]

I disagree with you. I think "send to opponents only" is unworkable. If it's the regulation, then it's unworkable - you're going to get one sometimes, two sometimes, and zero sometimes, and nobody's going to know (except the opponents). Sure, there *should be* a "you're the announcer" discussion, but there should also be a "what do we play from KT95" discussion, and we know how often that happens. And that's much worse than announce to table.

 

But I stand by my original comment. There was UI, there was no use of UI. "Could well damage the non-offenders" is not a bar that has been met by 'once every 2000 hands partner will forget their system, it might have been this time if partner hadn't said anything." If it is, then SB could well have been damaged by "Hello, opps" - because the length of time it takes for the greeting to come out could pass information about the strength of the hand, because they look at it to figure out their first call before greeting their opponents.

 

If the announcement *changed*, either by to whom it was sent or what it said, in significant ways, and if those ways corresponded to hand types, sure we have a problem.

[pescetom]

Next you're going to tell me that had partner instead of giving notrump ranges said "we play a strong club", with 6 clubs and an 11 count I now have to open 1♣ rather than 2 because I might have forgotten I'm playing a strong club not something else ? It gets to a ridiculous place fast if this case IS an issue, I think you're assumed to know basic parts of your own system.

We get to a ridiculous place only if we accept that it is normal to forget the rules but not our own system. If one partner is gratuitously emitting UI why should Director be bound to assume that the other partner is more competent/ethical and that the non-offenders could not well be damaged?

[Cyberyeti]

We get to a ridiculous place only if we accept that it is normal to forget the rules but not our own system. If one partner is gratuitously emitting UI why should Director be bound to assume that the other partner is more competent/ethical and that the non-offenders could not well be damaged?

 

This is a scenario where you may be doing what is 100% normal in face to face bridge where you play (or may have simply hit the wrong button). We are not in normal times and a lot of people are playing online bridge who normally don't.

[pescetom]

This is a scenario where you may be doing what is 100% normal in face to face bridge where you play (or may have simply hit the wrong button). We are not in normal times and a lot of people are playing online bridge who normally don't.

 

I quite agree about the difficulty of adaptation to an online environment, but surely that is the point of the OP: a different environment is no excuse to put aside the underlying principles of the game, even if the mechanisms are radically different and require a bit of mental flexibility. In face to face bridge it is not 100% or even 1% normal to advise partner of the agreed meaning of your own calls and you accurately avoid doing so.

[Cyberyeti]

I quite agree about the difficulty of adaptation to an online environment, but surely that is the point of the OP: a different environment is no excuse to put aside the underlying principles of the game, even if the mechanisms are radically different and require a bit of mental flexibility. In face to face bridge it is not 100% or even 1% normal to advise partner of the agreed meaning of your own calls and you accurately avoid doing so.

 

No but it is absolutely normal here to announce as you sit down that sort of info, "We play Acol, 4 card majors and a ... NT", and it's not unknown by any means for it to happen AFTER you've absent mindedly looked at your cards.

[mycroft]

Having read the regulations about the Lockdown League and the referenced Online KO/Plate, there is no reference to "the system announcement is made as private to the opponents". These seem to be the closest things to it (from the Online KO doc):

 

17 Teams should exchange system cards with each other before the start of play, either in advance by email, or by having completed online system cards available for their opponents to refer to before the start of the match.

 

18 Normal alerting and announcing rules apply, subject to two exceptions:

a If the software allows, players should alert their own calls, and not their partner’s, ensuring that only their opponents and not their partners can see the alerts and any explanations.

 

General explanation of system is a normal thing, but it's not "their own call", so that doesn't apply (given Cyberyeti's acknowledgement that IRL, this announcement is not always remembered to be done before cards are in hands, I think, in fact, everything went "normally" per pp.18).

 

What does, 100%, apply, is the following from the Lockdown League doc:

 

This is a friendly (competitive fun) league

Yes, I elided the rest of the sentence explaining that it has to be regulated. That doesn't change the fact that even attempting this is a clear violation of the intent of the league and should be treated as such.

 

Having said *that*, I stand by my original comment: given that it could be unclear, and given that BBO makes it so that cards are seen as soon as all four players are seated, I would call up Charlie or Gordon as requested and confirm that this is a valid method, required by regulation, and therefore is subject to the carveout in 40B2d.

 

The end of that paragraph (past my elision) says:

I will stress that to request a ruling, you must send [gordontd] your request within 20 minutes of the end of the match.

I assume that that was done perfectly, and that gordontd's response was "I am roundfiling this, and will pretend it was pitched unread. That means I have not taken note of your attitude and unwillingness to play this league in the spirit it was obviously, even to you, intended, officially. Which means that your team is not disqualified - yet." or a less polite version of the same.

[barmar]

No but it is absolutely normal here to announce as you sit down that sort of info, "We play Acol, 4 card majors and a ... NT", and it's not unknown by any means for it to happen AFTER you've absent mindedly looked at your cards.

And in the online environment, you don't have control over when the cards are displayed. They're displayed as soon as you arrive at the table, you can't wait to take cards out of the board while you make all your announcements.

[mycroft]

...which is why SB "worked out from first principles" that the announcement had to be made privately to the opponents. And then claimed it was a regulation.

 

Amusingly, it does in fact seem that he did send this rant totally legitimate query to gordonTD; the first actual regulation in the new Sky-Blue book:

Pairs should upload a system card to the platform, which should be available to opponents during the round. The system card should include agreements for bidding and carding.

 

In the absence of an online system card, the pair should ‘pre-announce’ at the beginning of each round – this should include basic bidding system and carding arrangements.

 

Players may consult their own system card and other notes at any stage (Law 20G3).

 

Note:Any other provision is regarded as unenforceable. This general condition could be overridden by the specific conditions of contest, such as where the participants are monitored by online video.

 

(My Emphasis) So in fact the correct announcement, per regulations, is "please see system card." I don't have an issue with "K/S, Keri/NT, 1NT O/C T/O, UDCA and SP" in addition to the card (instead of "look at our card, btw we're weird"), because that's what everyone in the EBU is used to.

 

I think SB got the answer he deserved. And I think the EBU got the answer it needs for the current situation.

[Cyberyeti]

And in the online environment, you don't have control over when the cards are displayed. They're displayed as soon as you arrive at the table, you can't wait to take cards out of the board while you make all your announcements.

 

This was my exact point further up the thread

[pescetom]

And in the online environment, you don't have control over when the cards are displayed. They're displayed as soon as you arrive at the table, you can't wait to take cards out of the board while you make all your announcements.

 

You are quite right to point this out.

You could also of course do something about this B-)

Offering everyone a "Cards" button might be one idea.

When all have tired of discussion and pressed "Cards" then cards are released.

[barmar]

We could, but I think people would find it more annoying than helpful to have to manually request their cards.

 

No one but SB considers this a real problem.

[lamford]

We could, but I think people would find it more annoying than helpful to have to manually request their cards.

 

No one but SB considers this a real problem.

Everyone considers it a real problem that someone can convey selected parts of their system to their partner after they have seen their cards, under the pretence of telling the opponents.

[Cyberyeti]

Everyone considers it a real problem that someone can convey selected parts of their system to their partner after they have seen their cards, under the pretence of telling the opponents.

 

I think there's a matter of degree here, if somebody says they're playing a strong club or their NT range, that's fine, if they say "and SAT" then open 4♣ then that's clearly much more dubious.

 

The law atm does not reflect this, I think it should. Basic system, NT range, 4/5M, and basic carding should be OK, anything else not. (basically defining those things as stuff you will remember so not UI)

[blackshoe]

The law does not at present recognize the frailties of human memory. Should it? I think not. Regulation is another matter. Also, the online environment is significantly different to the f2f environment, which is one reason I lean toward doing this, if we're going to do it at all, in regulation rather than law.

 

If a pair are playing an unusual system, you would have it "okay" to remember the "basic system" (whatever that means) even though some of the opening bids might be unusual (Romex, for example). A pair which has just taken up such a system may find more "forgets" than a pair who has been playing it for a while. Should the law address that as well?

[mycroft]

If it is the same thing said every time, then no. Online, at least in the EBU, per regulation. But if it's the same thing said every time, then the contents of the hands are a hippopotamus irrelevant.

[pescetom]

We could, but I think people would find it more annoying than helpful to have to manually request their cards.

 

No one but SB considers this a real problem.

 

I think it is a real problem in a friendly but competitive tournament.

I fully understand that the majority of BBO users would not appreciate it (most probably think Alert is a nuisance too).

No idea of forcing it on anybody, just a setting available in tournament creation, like Barometer or Allow Undo.

[lamford]

I think there's a matter of degree here, if somebody says they're playing a strong club or their NT range, that's fine, if they say add "and SAT strong in third" then open 4♣ 1NT in third then that's clearly much more dubious.

FYP

[Cyberyeti]

FYP

 

Disagree completely, that is part of your basic NT range and would be something you would say F2F on sitting down, SAT would not be.

[weejonnie]

The EBU have now resolved this problem with their new 'sky-blue' book. Players are now assumed to be able to view their system notes as they play - so there is now no UI.

[pescetom]

The EBU have now resolved this problem with their new 'sky-blue' book. Players are now assumed to be able to view their system notes as they play - so there is now no UI.

 

I applaud the courage of EBU.

Not sure it is the right decision but it is certainly better than no decision and I appreciate how difficult it is.

Now the ball is in WBF court, assuming WBF actually realises it is playing a game vital for survival.

[lamford]

I applaud the courage of EBU.

Not sure it is the right decision but it is certainly better than no decision and I appreciate how difficult it is.

Now the ball is in WBF court, assuming WBF actually realises it is playing a game vital for survival.

I agree with this change, and I totally agree that online play is different to live play, but it also presents its own problems. Consulting one's system notes is fine, and confers minimal advantage as most good players can learn their methods. Potentially the biggest problem is consulting your what's app screen to find out your partner's hand. Collusive cheating is very difficult to stop and would confer as big an advantage as consulting a computer would in chess or backgammon. In Online Scrabble I believe one is allowed to check a word in a dictionary, but not allowed to use Anagram Dictionaries. All online play presents insuperable problems in establishing probity.

[ahydra]

So, in part, this problem comes down to BBO's lack of a "pre-auction-period" section before the first board's auction period begins. It would be good for EBU to address this in their book, e.g. "the first board's auction period is not deemed to start until dealer has made a call", so that the two sides can discuss systems as much as is necessary, both with partner and with opponents, before play begins, regardless of the fact BBO is showing them some cards. If a pair is found to use this discussion period to somehow pass information about their hand on the first board then we rule under 73B2 and ban them from BBO ;).

 

I do like the idea of RAs publishing supplementary regulations for online play. From what I can tell, however, NZB is yet to do this. Perhaps I should e-mail our Chief TD.

 

ahydra