[DJNeill]

Hi all,
This happens all the time but I figure I should at least voice an opinion to the developers.

In an ACBL tourney today, round 3 I sat down against two opponents. Both said hi very quickly. I would assume they have good pings.

1S-(1N)-4S-(tank about 90 seconds then Pass);
P-(X)-P-(P);

Let's just say that pass by the 1N bidder is a logical alternative.

The director asked me how much of a BIT and I said about 90 seconds. He said something to the table like: "please do not vary your tempo, play on". I asked later and he said, rightly, that he cannot rule on tempo issues because the software doesn't allow it.

So I suggest 1 of 2 things so that the BBO ACBL club does not look foolish:

a) post in the conditions of contest file that tempo is never considered a cause for UI
or
b ) program in, like in OKbridge, the ability for directors to note tempo

No other club claims to abide by any set of rules, but this one. So it should follow them, change them publicly, or declare itself as inept... publicly (e.g. "Inept ACBL Tournament 1pm")

Thanks,
Dan

[jillybean]

fiwi, I am not an ACBL qualified TD and others will be better qualified to respond.

I do not understand the comment about the software limitation. It is true the TD cannot issue procedural penalties but PP’s are not used in cases of breaks in tempo. The TD must review the board and if damage occurred award an adjusted score under law 12C. imho a TD call arising from a break in tempo must be treated as it would in f2f bridge. (Proprieties law73)

Admittedly these calls are time consuming, challenging and difficult to resolve online but I don’t see any reason why it should not be resolved within the laws.

Quote

The WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge 2001

LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. Inadvertent Variations
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady
tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly
careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their
side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a
call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety,
but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by
an opponent, and at his own risk.
2. Intentional Variations
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or
gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating
before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is
made.

jb

Edit: I have seen some of the most scrupulous players saying ‘I cant bid xyz now’ when their partner has made an obvious BIT. A player quickly turns red when they have lost connection so I think all other BIT has to be regarded as potential UI. The instances where a player is going to be distracted at the same moment they are making a bid that could convey UI is just too remote to throw the rules out and to blame a slow connection is silly.

[pbleighton]

The explanation I got was that internet connections were slow, so they rarely rule on tempo/UI. I asked the TD to look anyway, and she said the opp's bid looked "fairly normal", and there would be no adjustment. I didn't want to "teach the TD", so I didn't say anything.

A minor flaw, IMO, for inexpensive, convenient play, with better competetion than the MBC.

Peter

[Winstonm]

This is especially hard in online bridge play as a number of extraneous events can cause a delay in action - the telephone rings, the family comes in a wants the car keys, the cat jumps onto the mouse pad and knocks the mouse onto the floor - not to mention the technical issues with connections and such.

The only way to guage what is happening is to monitor an online pair to see if hesitations and subsequent action has a pattern - and that is almost impossible to do.

The best thing to do IMO is simply accept the limitations, accept that online bridge is not "serious" bridge, and don't sweat the small stuff.

[DrTodd13]

Personally, I think that all long hesitations should be treated as thinking unless the player has a red dot. Your doorbell rang? Sorry. I think this is consistent with the spirit of many laws. You spill coffee in your lap and drop a card on the table? It's a penalty card. It doesn't matter if you intentionally dropped it or not. Since we can't read your mind (or know whether you were thinking or not) then the benefit of the doubt goes to the side that certainly did not offend.

[uday]

Quote

rightly, that he cannot rule on tempo issues because the software doesn't allow it.

I don't know what that means, exactly, but I'll find out. I happen to think it unwise to make rulings based on "breaks in tempo." Many (not all, many) have non-human causes.

If online sites are making a mockery of the game, perhaps the laws need to be updated to reflect what's actually happening "in here". If they were, a site like ours wouldnt have to make stuff up as we went along. This applies to more than the acbl games, of course.

[jikl]

I know I rule on UI for BIT in my games, but I also make it known that if you are thinking, say so to the table, because I want less calls, not more

Sean

[jillybean]

I am just thinking of the alternate that if TD’s disregard BIT we are saying to the innocent pair that maybe it was caused by another factor and so I won’t rule for you.
Many months ago I chatted with a prominent WBF TD about BIT and he said
I judge about the "use of the bit", not the "bit" in itself

[Echognome]

My experience on bbo as of late has been to experience lots of lag despite the fact that I'm on broadband and the rest of my internet has been fine. From reports from my friends, sometimes it shows a red dot for me and sometimes it doesn't. Also it's hard for me to tell when I'm lagging and when I'm not (often it looks on my screen as if an opponent is thinking as the bidding hasn't come around to me). Now I don't play in acbl tournaments, but I can imagine I'm not the only person to whom this happens. I do try to say to opponents if I lag, that I'm lagged and not thinking and also to type "thinking" or "tanking" if I am actually thinking. However, since I predominantly play with friends, this is not an issue.

In regards to the laws, this is very difficult and I am sure it can be very frustrating. I have learned to just accept that tempo issues can be difficult to enforce online. But to be fair, your opponents can simply outright cheat if they really wanted to. Furthermore, a visit to your local club will find people exercising some dubious ethics as well. It is so bad against one of our local pairs, that we refuse to play any bid that requires an alert (despite the fact that we only ever play at the club to practice system!).

Thus although it is problematic, I do not think it is fair to be too harsh on the TDs. Perhaps the only thing that can be done is to have an online acbl recorder. Then the players when they call the TD can request simply that the deal be kept and TD can simply try to confirm whether there was a BIT or not.

[jillybean]

What is an online acbl recorder?

ty
jb

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Oct 16 2006, 12:21 PM, said:

What is an online acbl recorder?

ty
jb

There is no such thing at the moment.

I will let someone more familiar with the acbl answer what a recorder does in particular. My understanding is that a recorder keeps track of suspicious deals by opponents and if several accumulate then the laws and ethics committee can question the pairs at hand.

Of course online it is much easier to 'record' deals and I'm sure that abuse@ must have to look at the history of a pairs' bridge hands together in cheating cases. My only point is to have them marked and filed separately for the acbl.

[helene_t]

DrTodd13, on Oct 16 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

Since we can't read your mind (or know whether you were thinking or not) then the benefit of the doubt goes to the side that certainly did not offend.

So if I'm accused of thought crime I'll have to prove that I wasn't thinking? This is even more scarry than I ... ehhhh ...... thought .....

[1eyedjack]

One avenue that should never be entirely discounted is to ask the "offending" side whether or not they agree that there has been a break in tempo. If they are ethical (and contrary to popular belief there ARE some ethical players out there) then they will admit to a break in tempo and will advise whether the break was software driven or wetware driven.

If they say that it is software driven then I would suggest that (currently, at least) you have no alternative but to accept their word for it (as should their opponents, gracefully).

If all parties agree that there was a tempo break for wetware reasons, then in order to adjust you still have to consider whether there was an LA to the action suggested by the BIT, and if damage resulted, before you finally consider an adjustment.

We do not have access to a full transcript of the discussion at the table in this particular case but from the information available it looks to me as though the TD took little action to obtain an agreement as to the facts (re BIT), and in this respect he may have been negligent.

[DrTodd13]

helene_t, on Oct 16 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Oct 16 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

Since we can't read your mind (or know whether you were thinking or not) then the benefit of the doubt goes to the side that certainly did not offend.

So if I'm accused of thought crime I'll have to prove that I wasn't thinking? This is even more scarry than I ... ehhhh ...... thought .....

You are not accused of a thought crime for thinking since thinking is allowed. The only thing is that your partner has to make sure to take the normal action if you pass. BIT is not an automatic penalty but like the other poster said, you look at the result of the BIT on partner and not at the BIT itself. Your partner is just banned from taking a flier if there is a BIT.

[DrTodd13]

1eyedjack, on Oct 16 2006, 04:36 AM, said:

One avenue that should never be entirely discounted is to ask the "offending" side whether or not they agree that there has been a break in tempo. If they are ethical (and contrary to popular belief there ARE some ethical players out there) then they will admit to a break in tempo and will advise whether the break was software driven or wetware driven.

If they say that it is software driven then I would suggest that (currently, at least) you have no alternative but to accept their word for it (as should their opponents, gracefully).

If all parties agree that there was a tempo break for wetware reasons, then in order to adjust you still have to consider whether there was an LA to the action suggested by the BIT, and if damage resulted, before you finally consider an adjustment.

If everyone were ethical would we need laws regarding BIT? Would you also suggest that the rules regarding insufficient bids be withdrawn and replaced with a rule that states insufficient bids may be replaced without penalty? After all, most people are ethical and make insufficient bids accidentally right? Why is it that the rule about insufficient bids is written the way it is? Why would they choose to punish people for accidents?

[1eyedjack]

DrTodd13, on Oct 16 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Oct 16 2006, 04:36 AM, said:

One avenue that should never be entirely discounted is to ask the "offending" side whether or not they agree that there has been a break in tempo.  If they are ethical (and contrary to popular belief there ARE some ethical players out there) then they will admit to a break in tempo and will advise whether the break was software driven or wetware driven.

If they say that it is software driven then I would suggest that (currently, at least) you have no alternative but to accept their word for it (as should their opponents, gracefully).

If all parties agree that there was a tempo break for wetware reasons, then in order to adjust you still have to consider whether there was an LA to the action suggested by the BIT, and if damage resulted, before you finally consider an adjustment.

If everyone were ethical would we need laws regarding BIT? Would you also suggest that the rules regarding insufficient bids be withdrawn and replaced with a rule that states insufficient bids may be replaced without penalty? After all, most people are ethical and make insufficient bids accidentally right? Why is it that the rule about insufficient bids is written the way it is? Why would they choose to punish people for accidents?

Most of the rules are designed not to punish but to restore equity.

Some of the rules (perhaps the most obvious is the extra trick for a revoke) do punish. Even there, however, punishment is not the intent behind the law, but it is recognised that some loss of equity is a price worth paying for increased certainty in the ruling.

Why do we need laws re. BIT? because no matter how ethical the player, (1) a break in tempo is not, by itself, either illegal or unethical and (2) whether or not there is an LA is often a debatable question. In face to face games, most of the disputes over BIT that I encounter do not revolve around a dispute over whether there was a break in tempo, but around the subsequent issues when the BIT is a given.

[bid_em_up]

jillybean2, on Oct 16 2006, 07:21 AM, said:

What is an online acbl recorder?

ty
jb

ACBL Recorder

http://www.acbl.org/play/recorder.html

describes how a recorder is appointed and his duties.

The position of recorder was created to give players a methodology of reporting suspected unethical behavior to a third party and have it investigated, without actually having to accuse someone of unethical behavior (or cheating). One of the flaws in the ACBL regulations is that (if I remember correctly) it is against the Laws to actually accuse someone of cheating (not to mention bad manners), but if someone is actually cheating they need to be reported somewhere. At the time the reporter position was created, there was no place to file a report/complaint of suspected unethical behavior, leaving players with no real solution should the behavior actually be occuring (a Catch-22). So the ACBL created the Recorders position to handle these complaints.

Essentially, he is an information gatherer that collects player complaints (usually regarding ethics), researches and investigates such complaints, possibly warns the offending pair that if such behavior continues that they will be referred to a displinary committee for review.

If, after a review of the complaint (or complaints), he finds that disciplinary action is warranted, he presents his case to the disciplinary committee.

A recorder (or assistant recorder) is supposed to be available at all tournaments. Failing this, the director-in-charge serves as the tournament's recorder, but forwards any Player memos to the Unit/Districts recorder. Player memos are supposed to be available at any ACBL sanctioned tournaments. (It is my belief that they are usually available at the club level as well).

The player memo can be found here:

http://web2.acbl.org.../play/pmemo.pdf

Currently there is no such thing as an "Online ACBL Recorder", but if there was, he would do the same thing(s) as a recorder for f2f tournaments, imo.

[DrTodd13]

1eyedjack, on Oct 16 2006, 09:37 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Oct 16 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Oct 16 2006, 04:36 AM, said:

One avenue that should never be entirely discounted is to ask the "offending" side whether or not they agree that there has been a break in tempo.  If they are ethical (and contrary to popular belief there ARE some ethical players out there) then they will admit to a break in tempo and will advise whether the break was software driven or wetware driven.

If they say that it is software driven then I would suggest that (currently, at least) you have no alternative but to accept their word for it (as should their opponents, gracefully).

If all parties agree that there was a tempo break for wetware reasons, then in order to adjust you still have to consider whether there was an LA to the action suggested by the BIT, and if damage resulted, before you finally consider an adjustment.

If everyone were ethical would we need laws regarding BIT? Would you also suggest that the rules regarding insufficient bids be withdrawn and replaced with a rule that states insufficient bids may be replaced without penalty? After all, most people are ethical and make insufficient bids accidentally right? Why is it that the rule about insufficient bids is written the way it is? Why would they choose to punish people for accidents?

Most of the rules are designed not to punish but to restore equity.

Some of the rules (perhaps the most obvious is the extra trick for a revoke) do punish. Even there, however, punishment is not the intent behind the law, but it is recognised that some loss of equity is a price worth paying for increased certainty in the ruling.

Why do we need laws re. BIT? because no matter how ethical the player, (1) a break in tempo is not, by itself, either illegal or unethical and (2) whether or not there is an LA is often a debatable question. In face to face games, most of the disputes over BIT that I encounter do not revolve around a dispute over whether there was a break in tempo, but around the subsequent issues when the BIT is a given.

Have you read ACBL appeals manuals from ACBL nationals? A good percentage of the time, the non-offending side will claim the BIT was 3 or 4 times longer than the offending side will admit.

I don't know what you mean by "increased certainty in the ruling." Why don't the revoke rules simply restore equity rather than penalizing? It is sad to admit but if all bridge laws simply sought to restore equity then there would be no reason not to try to manipulate the system for your own benefit. If you get caught then no one can prove you did it intentionally and all that will happen is what would have happened had you donw nothing. I contend that if the laws were not designed to be punitive that they should have been because otherwise there is no way to catch and punish people who misuse the system. Sure, if they do it constantly then maybe you can prove a pattern but if they are smart about it then you couldn't prove it wasn't an accident.

[mycroft]

Please note that Recorder information can come into play in determining a pattern of suspicious - not necessarily unethical, definately not necessarily cheating - behaviour, that can cause warnings or an ethics committee. The record (but not the individual recorder forms) can be used in Appeals.

Everybody breaks tempo. Everybody has had a borderline hand when partner breaks tempo. Everybody has had a hand where they really, truly, can't decide what the BIT demonstrably suggests. Sometimes their judgement is unique, or not the majority opinion, anyway. In those cases, we exercise the Law, we don't accuse anyone of ethics problems, and we continue.

Everybody says the wrong thing sometimes (my big one was pointing out dummy's opening suit of 5-4-3-2 with "nice clubs", when I had a void and a club switch was the only way to set the contract. I totally forgot about my hand, just looking at the lowball four-straight). We rule, maybe we adjust the score, but there's nothing unethical about "oops, that really was a bad time to make that comment, wasn't it? I'm really sorry."

But there are those who skate the edge, that make these comments a lot, always when it's right; that look for ways to get away with the "right" LA rather than following L73A to the letter, and use the above excuses when someone calls them on it; that do other things that, if they happened once in a blue moon, would be ungood but unfortunate, but if they happen regularly, are ungood and we can't really believe the player is trying to avoid the situation. The only way this can be seen over the course of a year is if the actions are Recorded, every time (at least every time it's blatant).

Michael.

[Gerben42]

Agree with Todd here. This situation just showed the director's incompetence. It is possible that the slow call was caused by something other than thinking but if there has been no red dot the partner of the slow bidder should take it as a BIT. No excuses.

Besides if the phone really rang and your husband was asking for the car keys while the duck was about to burn in the kitchen, just type "sorry phone" and then pass.