[keylime]

I think BITs are the hardest to adjudicate online. If there was a mechanism built into BBO with regards to a ping counter; you could in theory curb this to a degree.

[jillybean]

keylime, on Oct 16 2006, 05:08 PM, said:

I think BITs are the hardest to adjudicate online. If there was a mechanism built into BBO with regards to a ping counter; you could in theory curb this to a degree.

Well there is a mechanism now, indicated by a red dot or the player turns completely red when there is a connection problem.

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Oct 17 2006, 12:56 AM, said:

Well there is a mechanism now, indicated by a red dot or the player turns completely red when there is a connection problem.

That was my point. I don't think they always do...

It certainly helps when they do turn red, but if they don't it's not always the case that they are thinking.

[1eyedjack]

DrTodd13, on Oct 16 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

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.

{Edited - rewritten for poor structure}

No, I have not read any ACBL appeal bulletins, so you have the advantage, but I accept that the stats are as you say. I am not ACBL-based, and procedures may differ there.

It is however my observation that in general appellants are not well versed in the laws of bridge nor in the appeals procedures, as is evidenced by their apparent misapprehension that the extent of a BIT is relevant to the case. Analysing the causes of appeals and the evidence that ill-informed and unrepresented appellants try to bring into play at such appeals may be something of a smokescreen.

It therefore comes as no surprise to me that disputes over questions of fact, such as whether or not there was a BIT, spill over into appeals hearings. It would come as a surprise to me if the appeals committees regularly overturned findings of fact decided by directors who are closer to the action, have a responsibility to gather the evidence at the time and decide on questions of fact. The role of the appeal committee is primarily for the interpretation of the law given the facts. They might overturn a finding of fact if it seems that the director came to an unreasonable finding in light of the available evidence, and this would indeed be within the province of the appeal hearing.

But where does this leave us? Not much further forward. I speculate that a large number of cases do not reach the appeal hearing stage, where there was no dispute over the fact that BIT occurred, and analysing the appeal bulletins will provide no insight into that frequency. Nor have I ever suggested that BIT is never disputed. Of course it is. I have simply said that it is frequently not disputed, and it is one of the duties of the TD at least to investigate the possibility that BIT is undisputed. No amount of listing disputes on the matter will ever help to disprove that assertion.

I am not convinced that this debate has any relevance to the question of whether the laws are primarily designed to restore equity, mind.

[Gerben42]

You're missing the point here. I admit that the BIT could have been based on something other than thinking. However, as partner you have the obligation when there is no proof of the opposite, to assume that the BIT was caused by thinking. This may seem harsh but THAT is what ethical bridge looks like.

[blackshoe]

Wow! An awful lot of stuff in this thread!

What exactly is a break in tempo (BIT)? Simply put, it's a deviation from normal tempo - and normal tempo is the usual speed (or lack thereof) with which a player calls or plays. If your normal tempo is 2-3 seconds, and you take 0.5 or 7 seconds, you've broken tempo. 1 or 4 seconds, you probably haven't. If you've been handed a problem (via, for example, an unusual call by your RHO), then even 10 or 12 seconds is not a BIT - that's why there's a skip bid rule.

BITs in online bridge are complicated by the fact that what appears to be a BIT may not be one at all - it may be a delay in delivery of the player's action caused by a software or connection problem, or by outside interference (the phone barks, the dog rings, the doorbell explodes, whatever).

Law 73A2 says we should call and play "without undue haste or hesitation". Note that word "undue". It means that if we have a good reason for it, a haste or hesitation is not a problem.

The first duty of the TD any time he or she is called to a table is to ascertain the relevant facts (see Laws 84 and 85). The TD in this case did not do that, since one of the relevant facts is the reason for the 90 second delay in receipt of advancer's pass. How do we determine that fact? Simple: ask the player. Might he lie? Certainly - but IME that's unlikely, and IMO approaching this game (online or f2f) with the assumption that everyone (else, of course) is a cheat is nuts.

Let's suppose our advancer took 10 seconds to decide what to call, and just before he clicked on his call, the doorbell rang. So she jumped up to go answer it. 80 seconds later she gets back, "oops", clicks on pass, and there we are. Or there was lag. Or.... there could be any number of reasons why 90 seconds was not "undue" hesitation in the sense of the laws.

If the TD, after getting the facts (or at least doing her best to do so) decides there was an undue BIT, her obligation is to counsel the BITter's partner as to his obligations under Laws 73C and 16A or, if that player has already taken action, to decide whether that action was an infraction. Interestingly, the Laws say that one should call the Director when one has "substantial reason to believe" that an infraction (use of UI) has already occurred. In this particular case, that would be after the play is completed. At that point, the declaring side should have a pretty good idea what Overcaller held for his 1NT, and thus whether he had made use of UI in doubling. Also, whether the declaring side were damaged, since if they weren't, there would be no score adjustment anyway.

If the facts are not (or not yet) in evidence after partner may have made a BIT, I think you're constrained by Law 73C - you must "carefully avoid" taking advantage of any UI you may have.

We live in an increasingly litigous society. For that reason, the laws were changed (in 1987, I believe) to reduce the possibility that a player might sue because "the TD called me a cheat!" just on the basis of a ruling. That's why there are laws now that allow the TD to determine that a player "could have known" his infraction would help his side, not that he did know.

I think having a recorder is a great idea - and I suspect the function could be easily implemented in software for online bridge.

As Jilly pointed out, it's the use of UI, not the UI itself, that might lead to an adjustment.

The TD's action at the time was less than competent. Seems to me more training is needed.

I probably missed a bunch of comments I could have made, but I'm outta time...

[pigpenz]

Having been a district recorder i can tell you that it is a no win situation.
you get to keep lots of records of hands that people think are supsicious. Very seldom do you get enough to find a pattern by a pair that would lead one to assume that they are cheating.

Breaks in tempo are part of the game
and if you feel your partner made one then ethically you should go out of your way to not take inference from it.

Gweny in the past has stated that Fred feels that all breaks are connection based and TD's are supposed to rule that way....so in the case of break in tempos all you can do is call the TD when it happens and have the TD baby sit the rest of the auction to make sure thay people have their bids etc....that is about all that can be done.