[david_c]

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

I note that the TD did not reprimand me for my comment.  I guess the accuracy of my observation had something to do with it.

Or maybe he never saw it? From your description it did not seem like the TD was at the table when you wrote that.

And there really isn't any excuse for making comments like that. The fact that it happened to be true is irrelevant. It would be unacceptable to say it even after you'd seen the opponent's hand.

[Rossoneri]

FWIW, ArtK78, if it was a tourney I was directing, I might even be inclined to take a 2nd look and maybe adjust. (I say maybe because I have no idea what the full circumstances of this are.)

[wank]

west has AI from south's pass that east has at least as strong a hand as the opener which would be sufficient grounds for hesitating (i would expect double of a mini to show 13ish+). so the ui tells him nothing extra, so no adjustment.

as for table feel online, you're having a larf.

[the hog]

I think many are missing the point here. I think the problem is the partner of the hesitator. I think the contract should be changed to 6H. Regardless of the 1NT opening, is there anyone who would stop in less than 6H holding this monster opposite a re opening 2H?

[ArtK78]

wank, on Jul 23 2008, 10:18 PM, said:

west has AI from south's pass that east has at least as strong a hand as the opener which would be sufficient grounds for hesitating (i would expect double of a mini to show 13ish+). so the ui tells him nothing extra, so no adjustment.

as for table feel online, you're having a larf.

You are in 4th seat and hear it go 1NT (10-12) - P - P. How much must partner have on this auction?

Probably a minimum of 12. The opps can have a combined 24 count and intelligently pass it out in 1NT. So, partner must have at least 12 He may have more, but with much more he would have taken some action.

Therefore, the fact that partner hesitated does convey UI. He would not hesitate with 12 or 13 (unless he is very inexperienced). He might hesitate with 14 or 15, especially with a "bad" 14 or 15, as a double of the weak NT in front of an unpassed hand could get sent back.

Even with the hesitation, the hand with KJxxx should not balance. But there is certainly no excuse except that he knew his partner had power because of the hesitation.

As for your last comment, all I can say is that I knew he was taking advantage of his partner's hesitation, and I was right.

[pigpenz]

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

Is there no limitation to the policy about online hesitations?

we can cry or complain all we want about what happens online but in almost all cases nothing will ever get done.

so we roll the contract back to 1NT by your side
and procedural penalty for zero toerance violation

thats about all i can see that would be adjusted
and the scoring in the BBO doesnt allow that its only
avg/avg avg+/- or avg -/- or avg+/+

the td's dont really have any thing else they can do and as posted
before they are under timelines to get things done do to the nature
of speedballs.

also having played 10-13 NT range for about 30 yrs its still not out of the possiblity of partner having a full nt hand himself. I can go back and read the the previous post but was the 10-12 NT pre alerted?

Do you think the opps should have the right to say lets play this defense to their NT?

These are all things that seem to come up in online games and can creat amiguity...so the best thing to do is call the TD when an infraction occurs, that puts the other person under more scrutiny.

[nige1]

HeavyDluxe, on Jul 23 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

This does make me wonder why BBO doesn't 'stall' partner and RHO's bids in the display - simulating the concept of screens.

Good idea

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

When LHO bid 2♣, I commented on the chat line "it is not nice to bid on your partner's hesitation."

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

I recognize that my comment was technically out of line and a violation of zero tolerance.  But it was also 100% correct.  I am very tired of the rampant unethical behavior that exists in the online games, and standing by silently is not going to do anything to correct the problem. I note that the TD did not reprimand me for my comment.  I guess the accuracy of my observation had something to do with it.

ArtK78's slanderous remark is unethical behaviour and the director should penalise it.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on Jul 28 2008, 07:48 AM, said:

HeavyDluxe, on Jul 23 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

This does make me wonder why BBO doesn't 'stall' partner and RHO's bids in the display - simulating the concept of screens.

Good idea

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 06:56 AM, said:

When LHO bid 2♣, I commented on the chat line "it is not nice to bid on your partner's hesitation."

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 03:58 PM, said:

I recognize that my comment was technically out of line and a violation of zero tolerance.  But it was also 100% correct.  I am very tired of the rampant unethical behavior that exists in the online games, and standing by silently is not going to do anything to correct the problem. I note that the TD did not reprimand me for my comment.  I guess the accuracy of my observation had something to do with it.

ArtK78's slanderous remark is unethical behaviour and the director should penalise it.

I see. My remark, which was 100% accruate, is slanderous and should be penalized.

But LHO's taking advantage of the UI created by his partner's hesitation cannot be penalized because hesitations are not grounds for correction online.

Cheating at bridge is OK - commenting about it is a crime.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

[fred]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2008, 02:20 PM, said:

Cheating at bridge is OK - commenting about it is a crime.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

It is not OK to suggest, particularly in a public forum, that just because you perceive that a player took advantage of a hesitation that he/she was cheating.

Not only is it not OK, but the conclusion you draw is not supported by the facts that you present. There is another (obvious) way to explain what happened:

Perhaps the player with the strong hand was a novice.

Perhaps the player with the weak hand subscribes to the commonly held belief that when it goes 1NT-P-P and you have a singleton that you should bid.

I am not suggesting that what happened would necessarily be considered "OK" in a real life tournament setting, but it certainly would not be considered "cheating". And if you were to openly suggest this in a real life tournament setting you would (appropriately) be the one who would get into trouble.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Trinidad]

pigpenz, on Jul 27 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

I can go back and read the the previous post but was the 10-12 NT pre alerted?

Do you think the opps should have the right to say lets play this defense to their NT? 

These are all things that seem to come up in online games and can creat amiguity...so the best thing to do is call the TD when an infraction occurs, that puts the other person under more scrutiny.

From the original post:

Quote

* 10-12 (we prealerted our 10-12 1NT opening nonvul)

My guess (emphasize: guess) is that the opponents were playing DONT vs NT. They saw the prealert and knew that DONT is not a good defense against mini NT's. But due to the nature of speedball events, they decided not to discuss a whole new NT defense in the limited time that they had. (And I think they were right about that.)

But then the problems start: You have a huge hand, partner passes and RHO opens a 10-12 NT. You realize that in your system you basically have the choice between pass and bidding 3NT. You decide to pass. It goes pass.

Now we go over to the other opponent:
He passed in first seat, LHO opens 10-12 NT and it goes pass-pass. In DONT, he has an obvious 2♣ bid. (DONT is designed to be bid on cheese.) He is about to alert his 2♣ bid (or decided not to alert since they didn't have an agreement vs mini NT's) when his LHO comes up with a comment that is uncalled for. (After all, how could the OP know that he didn't hold Ax/xxx/xx/KQJxxx, a hand that everybody would bid with?)

The rest of the bidding is somewhat muddled (not uncommon in speedball events;) ). Opener bids 2♦, LHO doubles that for penalty, but in DONT that double is takeout to find the DONT-er's second suit. RHO bids the second suit and LHO finishes by bidding 3NT.

Now, if my guess is correct and the opponents were playing DONT vs strong NT and no agreement vs mini NT then there has been one infraction only: The uncalled for comment by the OP.

If this would be a f2f event that I was directing, I would investigate what NT defense was in use. There would be cases where I would adjust the board, but there would also be cases where I wouldn't adjust a thing (e.g. when they played DONT, without agreement on what to do vs mini NT). I would take the OP apart and explain him clearly why he is getting a procedural penalty (PP). This PP he will get, regardless of the NT defense used.

Now, this is an online event. The OP posted this on the forum and got heavy criticism all around. I guess that will have a stronger effect than a PP can achieve.

Rik

[nige1]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

I see.  My remark, which was 100% accruate, is slanderous and should be penalized.
But LHO's taking advantage of the UI created by his partner's hesitation cannot be penalized because hesitations are not grounds for correction online.
Cheating at bridge is OK - commenting about it is a crime.
Is there something wrong with this picture?

Yes what is wrong is that

• Your accusation is premature. At the time you made it you had no evidence that it was true.
  
• Also, you are not the person to judge whether there is an infraction. It is up to the director to judge whether an alleged infraction really is an infraction.
  
• Suppose that the director does judge that opponents could have used unauthorised information to their advantage. Accusing your opponents of cheating implicitly or explicitly is still unjustified. All accusations of cheating at Bridge are offensive and most are mistaken. Opponents may not know the law or may have made a genuine mistake.

I'm sure you're well aware of all this so why are you protesting? 2 wrongs don't make a right -- but 3 lefts do

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on Jul 28 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

From the original post:

Quote

* 10-12 (we prealerted our 10-12 1NT opening nonvul)

My guess (emphasize: guess) is that the opponents were playing DONT vs NT. They saw the prealert and knew that DONT is not a good defense against mini NT's. But due to the nature of speedball events, they decided not to discuss a whole new NT defense in the limited time that they had. (And I think they were right about that.)

But then the problems start: You have a huge hand, partner passes and RHO opens a 10-12 NT. You realize that in your system you basically have the choice between pass and bidding 3NT. You decide to pass. It goes pass.

Now we go over to the other opponent:
He passed in first seat, LHO opens 10-12 NT and it goes pass-pass. In DONT, he has an obvious 2♣ bid. (DONT is designed to be bid on cheese.) He is about to alert his 2♣ bid (or decided not to alert since they didn't have an agreement vs mini NT's) when his LHO comes up with a comment that is uncalled for. (After all, how could the OP know that he didn't hold Ax/xxx/xx/KQJxxx, a hand that everybody would bid with?)

The rest of the bidding is somewhat muddled (not uncommon in speedball events;) ). Opener bids 2♦, LHO doubles that for penalty, but in DONT that double is takeout to find the DONT-er's second suit. RHO bids the second suit and LHO finishes by bidding 3NT.

Every convention card has a space for defenses against strong NTs and defenses against weak NTs. So, it is clear that every pair should have at least briefly discussed what they do against weak no trump openings.

If they choose to play DONT, that is fine. It is unplayable against weak no trumps, but it is an agreement.

By the way, the balancing 2♣ bid was not alerted.

And who says that DONT was designed to be bid on cheese? I certainly never read that in any of Cohen's or Bergen's books. And why in balancing seat? Clearly partner has some values (at least 12 HCP, since the opponents didn't even try for game). Why isn't partner bidding on his hand?

And, in response to another comment, if this were a face-to-face game, the TD would have been called after RHO's hesitation (or, at least there would have been a mention of the fact of the hesitation and an agreement concerning that fact before the auction proceeded). Unfortunately, in the current state of online bridge games, it is the policy of the ACBL TDs to ignore hesitations as they can arise from many sources unrelated to bridge.

That was not the case here.

[pigpenz]

Art in a previous life I was district 20 recorder and sat in on committees and was a member of them also.

The case is over there is not much else you can do about it.

if there were a committee and opps were guilty as charged there would most likely be a roll back of contract and a procedural penalty against you for your comments.

But before any of this would have happened alot would depend on the level of your opponents as Fred has previuosly stated and any input from the TD at the time. Even if in this case its an ACBL BBO SPEEDBALL you are still allowed to call the TD, when you notice the infraction. IMHO this then puts the pressure on the partner of the person who committed the suppossed infraction.

[ArtK78]

Yes, the case is over. And I would not have made any additional postings if it were not for the fact that others resurrected this thread.

Calling a TD over a hesitation in an online ACBL game is a complete waste of time. All that will happen is the TD will inform you that hesitations may arise from any number of causes unrelated to bridge, and since those causes cannot be controlled it is the policy of the ACBL TDs to not do anything about hesitations.

As for my comment, I agree that it was out of line. And, in a real game, I would not make that comment. But in a real game I would be able to establish that a hesitation had taken place and reserve my rights, or, if necessary, call the TD to establish the facts prior to LHO taking any action in order to reserve my rights. Then, if LHO took an action, it would be subject to scrutiny. And, while some on this thread have tried to justify the bid in balancing seat, I suspect that no one would disagree that Pass is a logical alternative to any other call on the balancer's hand, and that any action other than Pass could have been influenced by the UI.

This is a recurring problem in ACBL online games on BBO (and in other online games, I am sure). Since the TDs will not take any actions against players taking advantage of the UI created by hesitations, that leaves us to fend for ourselves. Clearly, we will never get any redress on the score achieved at the table. Where does that leave us? Report the infraction so that some record may be kept of the players involved? That is a most unsatisfactory remedy.

The posters on this thread have spent most of their time and energy chastising me for my comment. Fine. I can deal with that. But look at the bridge problem. This is a recurring problem. Is there no remedy?

[Trinidad]

Edited:

I didn't see Art's last post. I agree with him that the case is over.

Rik

[pigpenz]

ArtK78, on Jul 28 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

The posters on this thread have spent most of their time and energy chastising me for my comment. Fine. I can deal with that. But look at the bridge problem. This is a recurring problem. Is there no remedy?

yes try and get the games to be real ACBL games.
Full rounds 24 boards would be one way.

But at the present for some reason everyone wants to play
these 12 board quickie games. Until problems like yours can be
addressed then and only then will be able to have online sectionals
and regionals...hopefully soon ....these can be addressed...but not
until the games are treated as real games.

[rbforster]

ArtK78, on Jul 23 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

So, I guess all of you think that the balance on KJ9xx of hearts and out is perfectly normal

In a KO this weekend I balanced with something like JTxxx QTxx xxx x in a similar situation (bidding 2♣ for the majors at w/w). There was no hesitation and I was a passed hand (known to be quite weak) so there was less risk of partner raising with a good hand.

[A2003]

P) - 1NT* - (P)** - P
(2♣)*** - 2♦ - (x) - P
(2♥) - P - (3NT) - All Pass

** - Noticeable hesitation

Player may be looking at the movie to check what happened in the previous hand.
This may cause hesitation in the bid. Lot of players do that type of activity.

[ArtK78]

A2003, on Jul 28 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

( P) - 1NT* - (P)** - P
(2♣)*** - 2♦ - (x) - P
(2♥) - P - (3NT) - All Pass

** - Noticeable hesitation

Player may be looking at the movie to check what happened in the previous hand.
This may cause hesitation in the bid. Lot of players do that type of activity.

And the fact that he passes over a weak notrump with a 21 count is merely a coincidence.

[jillybean]

A2003, on Jul 28 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

P) - 1NT* - (P)** - P
(2♣)*** - 2♦ - (x) - P
(2♥) - P - (3NT) - All Pass

** - Noticeable hesitation

Player may be looking at the movie to check what happened in the previous hand.
This may cause hesitation in the bid. Lot of players do that type of activity.

So we are saying all hesitation online is not considered UI because it may have been caused by an outside influence? I think this is clearly wrong.
If you want to play a “serious” game online, I think the onus should be on you to pay attention and minimize any distractions. Players with bad connections will have a pattern of uneven tempo, if otherwise you can’t concentrate any breaks in tempo are at your own risk. You can easily type brb or ‘door’ for any unexpected interruptions.
After unexplained BIT I think most players if asked will tell the truth and say yes, I took a long time for that bid, if that was the case.