[TimG]

jillybean2, on Jul 29 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

If you want to play a “serious” game online,

I think "serious online game" is something of an oxymoron. Expecting a serious game is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

[nige1]

A similar face-to-face case is Detroit 2008 NABC Appeal 1.
http://web2.acbl.org...08/01-NABC+.pdf

Pairs, Green v Red North dealer with: ♠ 954 ♥ 3 ♦ JT4 ♣ JT9865
---- _P (1N) _P
(2♦) _P (2♥) _P
(_P) ??

1N = 15-17
Your defense to 1N is:
_X = a minor one-suiter or the majors
2♣ = clubs and a major
2♦ = diamonds and a major
2♥ = hearts
2♠ = spades
2N = both minors

Partner (South) hesitated for at least 10 seconds over 1N.
What do you bid?

North bid 3♣ which turned out to be a great success when partner with his advertised 20 count nailed opponents in 3♥X for 800.

The direcotor sensibly ruled that North had a logical alternative of pass on his minor-suited 2-count and that partner's long tank made it safer for him to bid. He adjusted the score back to 2♥ undoubled (which seems automatic to me -- I think that North deserved an additional penalty).

Amazingly, the appeals committee reinstated the actual result of of 3♥X.

And Adam Wildavsky a highly respected commentator, thinks the committee got it right!

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

[ArtK78]

nige1, on Jul 29 2008, 10:05 AM, said:

A similar face-to-face case is Detroit 2008 NABC Appeal 1.
http://web2.acbl.org...08/01-NABC+.pdf

Pairs, Green. North dealer with: ♠ 954 ♥ 3 ♦ JT4 ♣ JT9865
---- _P (1N) _P
(2♦) _P (2♥) _P
(_P) ??

1N = 15-17
Your defense to 1N is:
Double = a minor one-suiter or the majors
2 ♣ = clubs and a major
2 ♦ = diamonds and a major
2 ♥ = hearts
2 ♠ = spades
2 N = both minors

Partner (South) hesitated for at least 10 seconds over 1N.
What do you bid?

North bid 3♣ which turned out to be a great success when partner with his advertised 20 count nailed opponents in 3♥ for 500.

The direcotor sensibly ruled that North had a logical alternative of pass on his minor-suited 2-count and that partner's long tank made it safer for him to bid. He adjusted the score back to 2♥ undoubled (which seems automatic to me -- I think that North deserved an additional penalty).

Amazingly, the appeals committee reinstated the actual result of of 3♥X.

And Adam Wildavsky a commentator, for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I normally agree, thinks the committee got it right!

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

What I have to say about that is that it is a much different situation when the 1NT opening is a strong NT rather than a weak NT.

Over a strong NT, it is quite sensible to pass with a strong balanced hand. So, when the auction dies at 2♥, it is reasonable for the hand in balancing seat to infer that his partner may have a strong balanced hand. This is bridge logic, and while the hesitation certainly makes it more likely that partner has values, the fact that partner has values WHICH HE COULD NOT SHOW ON THE AUCTION is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the auction.

Over a weak NT, however, it cannot be said that partner has a strong balanced hand. With a strong balanced hand he would have doubled in direct seat. Virtually all players use a double of a weak NT opening (especially a 10-12 1NT opening) as values/penalty. So, the failure to double the opening 1NT bid should deny significant values. When the auction goes pass-pass to fourth seat, he has the inference that partner does NOT have significant values EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT PARTNER HESITATED AFTER THE 1NT OPENING. Now, balancing on a weak hand makes no sense as a matter of bridge logic.

Of course, all of this depends on the methods used by the side which is balancing. Most better players (but not all) play methods against strong NT openings which do not allow for showing strong balanced hands. And I have had more than one expert player tell me that even if he was using such a method, he would not act with a balanced strong hand after a strong 1NT opening on his right, as it is usually a losing action. Partner is almost always weak in this situation, and letting the opponents struggle in 1NT is usually the best course of action.

However, against a weak 1NT opening, the defending side can and often does have a game or a large penalty available to them when the next hand is strong. And most better players (but not all) play methods against weak NT openings that include a double showing a strong hand.

[jkdood]

I have tried to refrain from commenting since this situation has bit me in the emotional and disciplinary arse in the past when I either make a table observation like Art did, or in an ACBL setting, get ruled against by an AC ruling such as the Detroit case.

At least in live settings, I am encouraged by the new ACBL policy permitting the "I reserve the right to call" comment. Too often it was let's say inconvenient or taken-offensively to call a TD right away, and of course, not calling and having drama develop later when UI seemingly has had a role, gets real ugly.

Sure, there are somewhat-unaware less-experienced players (who don't know their full ethical obligations or are oblivious to the BIT) or someone changing the baby's diaper (online) but even a "I reserve.." comment on BBO seems to have merit. If it later develops UI has a possible role and the BIT hand is like the one above, well: I don't think assuming he was watching BBO-movie cuts it.

What's more interesting I think, and troubling for me, is that there often seems to be "significant doubt" as to what the BIT suggests and what the LFLA is. The Detroit case is a prime example. This case is somewhat similar.

Maybe I sound like Bobby Wolff from the 70's when he sparred with ACs over this, but I personaly feel that the NON-offending side should ALWAYS get the "benefit of the doubt" ruling in these matters, and the offending side should (a) have the burden to appeal, and ( b ) learn their methods, their alert and ethical obligations, and to bid pr pass in tempo in situations where pard may be influenced. A few too many adverse adjustments and they may well improve. If they must give up the game because of all the bridge lawyering, well, it will be a purer game with them staying home and so-be-it if we need their income to flourish as a sport.

I know many think that the bridge lawyers should be the ones staying home, and that double-shots, too many director calls, and table-observations like Art made are the worse possible thing for the health of the game. But until there is a more tasteful and acceptable way to educate the offenders and stop the unfairness that results when offenders effectively continue to "get away with it" I'm with Bobby.

[jillybean]

nige1, on Jul 29 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

A similar face-to-face case is Detroit 2008 NABC Appeal 1.
http://web2.acbl.org...08/01-NABC+.pdf

Pairs, Green. North dealer with: ♠ 954 ♥ 3 ♦ JT4 ♣ JT9865
---- _P (1N) _P
(2♦) _P (2♥) _P
(_P) ??

1N = 15-17
Your defense to 1N is:
Double = a minor one-suiter or the majors
2 ♣ = clubs and a major
2 ♦ = diamonds and a major
2 ♥ = hearts
2 ♠ = spades
2 N = both minors

Partner (South) hesitated for at least 10 seconds over 1N.
What do you bid?

North bid 3♣ which turned out to be a great success when partner with his advertised 20 count nailed opponents in 3♥ for 500.

The direcotor sensibly ruled that North had a logical alternative of pass on his minor-suited 2-count and that partner's long tank made it safer for him to bid. He adjusted the score back to 2♥ undoubled (which seems automatic to me -- I think that North deserved an additional penalty).

Amazingly, the appeals committee reinstated the actual result of of 3♥X.

And Adam Wildavsky a commentator, for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I normally agree, thinks the committee got it right!

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

I think the pertinent point here is that EW were allowed to appeal.

[blackshoe]

Regarding the Detroit appeal, a couple of things:

1. Contestants in a bridge tournament are permitted to appeal any ruling made at their table, so I guess I don't understand Jilly's comment.

2. I note that Wildavsky was the only commentator to agree with the committee.

3. I think Wolff's "sanctimonious rhetoric" was a bit of an overbid. I do have some sympathy for Wolff's view in this case, though I think his crusade (of which his comments here are a part) is ill judged.

4. Comments about weak NT methods don't seem very pertinent to a case in which a strong NT was used.

5. I think the attitude "rule for the NOS; let the OS appeal" is unfortunate. Rather we should try to get directors to make the right ruling (whatever that may be) in the first place.

6. this was not an easy case. Particularly when the committee heard South, but no one was around to rebut him. Seems to me that kind of thing introduces a potential bias that should perhaps not be engendered. Still, it seems to me the TD got it right, South's arguments not withstanding. On the gripping hand, we have committees to apply judgement, and that's what they did.

[ArtK78]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2008, 12:46 PM, said:

4. Comments about weak NT methods don't seem very pertinent to a case in which a strong NT was used.

But it is relevent to the original post in this thread. Especially in light of this comment:

Quote

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

[blackshoe]

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 01:07 PM, said:

But it is relevent to the original post in this thread. Especially in light of this comment:

Quote

I wonder what ArtK78 will have to say about that?

I didn't get from your post that it was about the OP, but fair enough.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

1. Contestants in a bridge tournament are permitted to appeal any ruling made at their table, so I guess I don't understand Jilly's comment.

There is an online trend to ignore all cases of hesitation, as it could be caused by outside influences. So, you are not going to get a TD to review the hand, there is no ruling to appeal. It would be just fine if we were debating the merits of a TD decision or AC.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

What I have to say about that is that it is a much different situation when the 1NT opening is a strong NT rather than a weak NT.

The cases are different in some ways. Among the features they share are

• LHO opens 1N.
  
• Your methods don't include a penalty double of 1N.
  
• Partner hesitates and passes.
  
• You protect with a poor shapely hand.
  
• In both cases, a cynic might argue...
  • Without assurance from partner's hesitation. a danger of protection is that opponents wake up and bid and make game.
    
  • Another risk of protection is that partner himself bids a hopeless game because he places you with a few values for your bid . This risk is reduced if partner is unethical and believes that his hesitation has already shown an enormous hand.

[pigpenz]

jillybean2, on Jul 29 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

There is an online trend to ignore all cases of hesitation, as its cause may be from outside influences. You are not going to get a TD to review the hand, there is no ruling to appeal. It would be just fine if we were debating the merits of a TD decision or AC.

yes there is but for me what i have noticed is that when there are online hesitations there almost always seems to be questionable bidding or play afterwards...so to just blame it on connections is crazy.

But i do think it has alot to do with the quality of the game you are playing in. How do you control the type of behaviour in these games, I dont think you can...you either learn to live with it or just refuse to play in them.

[ArtK78]

nige1, on Jul 29 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

What I have to say about that is that it is a much different situation when the 1NT opening is a strong NT rather than a weak NT.

The cases are different in some ways. Among the features they share are

• LHO opens 1N.
  
  
• Your methods don't include a penalty double of 1N.
  
  
• Partner hesitates and passes.
  
  
• You have a poor shapely hand.
  
  
• In both cases, a cynic might argue...
  • Without assurance from partner's hesitation. a danger of protection is that opponents wake up and bid and make game.
    
    
  • Another risk of protection is that partner himself bids a hopeless game because he places you with a few values for your bid . This risk is reduced if partner is unethical and believes that his hesitation has already shown an enormous hand.

Why do you assume that the opponents' methods do not include a penalty double of 1NT? They certainly never said that was the case at the table.

I find it hard to believe that the opponents' methods do not include a penalty double of a WEAK 1NT opening. They are certainly entitled to play whatever method they choose, but any defensive method against a weak 1NT (and certainly against a 10-12 1NT) that does not include a penalty double is unplayable. That would certainly explain the hesitation. The cynic might argue that the method is somewhat more playable if hesitations are taken into account.

[pigpenz]

ArtK78, on Jul 29 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

I find it hard to believe that the opponents' methods do not include a penalty double of a WEAK 1NT opening. They are certainly entitled to play whatever method they choose, but any defensive method against a weak 1NT (and certainly against a 10-12 1NT) that does not include a penalty double is unplayable. That would certainly explain the hesitation. The cynic might argue that the method is somewhat more playable if hesitations are taken into account.

I agree but there are verying degrees of the quality of the players you run against in the ACBL BBO games. The person who has won the ACBL title the last 2 years plays RKC blackwood but does not play queen asking bids, to me that is just as bad as not playing a penalty double of 10-12 NT.

Ask yourself how many times in these games have you seen players ask for aces with a void?

you pay your $1 or you can play in or direct your own free games. The ACBL games are a money maker for BBO and they are most likely not about to change the format.

But some where something has to change cause I would think it would be great if the ACBL could move into the online era for sectionals and maybe possibly regionals.

[A2003]

TimG, on Jul 29 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Jul 29 2008, 09:15 AM, said:

If you want to play a “serious” game online,

I think "serious online game" is something of an oxymoron. Expecting a serious game is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

I agree this ACBL tournament is not a serious game.
First of all, this is speedball tournament, designed for fast and fun.
The players gets uncomfortable when you take time to think on complex hands or situation.
Calling TD for no reasons when you have ample time left.
This applies pressure on the players when playing the hand.
Thought process for playing is disturbed by this.
Wasting time in typing.

ACBL does not even recognize all the points earned towards your ACBL ranking.
Only one third counts to your ACBL ranking.

You only play 4 teams out of 100. So, there is a lot of luck involved.
One team got 68% and placed 5th in the section.
Average of 20 boards are adjusted for scores by TD in each tournament.

[pigpenz]

A2003, on Jul 29 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

I agree this ACBL tournament is not a serious game.

I would tend to think that there would be alot of people who would not agree with your opinion of that. They (BBO) runs 2board rounds 15 min round games opp the speedballs, they have become almost extinct since the advent of the speedball games.

You dont have to pay $1 to have fun, but yet there are people who spend almost $300 month playing ACBL BBO speedball games. The main reason I am sure is for the points they win.

I myself would be happy to pay sectional fees to play in online acbl sanctioned full length pairs events.

[hotShot]

The laws say:
Players should not hesitate without a bridge reason.
Opps are allowed to draw conclusions from this hesitation.
Hesitating to lead opps to wrong conclusions is cheating.

His Partner is not allowed to use informations other than bidding, play and agreements.
Drawing conclusions from partners hesitation is not allowed.

A possible online reguation would be:
Don't draw conclusions from opps hesitation, because they often have no bridge reason.
And the hesitating player might not have control over the delay.

But hesitators partner is a completely different issue. If a meaningless hesitation occurs than using the UI (that was in fact not given) will lead to bad result for the offending side. So it is punished with a bad score.
But if a meaningful hesitation occurs it's riskfree to use it.
Thats not fair.

[blackshoe]

Meh. "That was in fact not given" is an overbid. What you should say is that while a BIT conveys UI via inference (partner hesitated because he was thinking of doing X), it may be that the inference turns out to be incorrect. That's all well and good, but it doesn't matter. If a player infers something from his partner's BIT (or any other extraneous action) he is not permitted to take advantage of that inference.

[barmar]

The hesitation laws are intended to be statistically fail-safe for the NOS. If partner hesitates for a non-bridge reason, but you make a bridge-related inference from it, and act on that inference, you'll probably get a bad result, and the opponents won't be damaged. If, on the other hand, he did have a bridge reason for the hesitation, you infer it correctly, act on that inference, and the opponents are damaged as a result, the Laws allow the TD to adjust the score and even penalize you if appropriate.

So whatever the reason for the hesitation, you should not take advantage of it.

In ArtK78's response above, he says that when balancing over a strong NT, there's usually a valid bridge reason to bid. However, you still have to be careful when there's UI. Just because bridge logic agrees with what the UI suggests doesn't mean you're off the hook. There has to be no other logical alternative. Suppose 60-70% of players of your calibre would balance, while 30-40% would pass, then both are LAs; you must choose the one that is not suggested by the UI. It doesn't matter that you would have gone with the majority regardless of the hesitation -- UI sometimes restricts your choices, unfortunately.

[pigpenz]

barmar, on Jul 30 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

The hesitation laws are intended to be statistically fail-safe for the NOS. If partner hesitates for a non-bridge reason, but you make a bridge-related inference from it, and act on that inference, you'll probably get a bad result, and the opponents won't be damaged. If, on the other hand, he did have a bridge reason for the hesitation, you infer it correctly, act on that inference, and the opponents are damaged as a result, the Laws allow the TD to adjust the score and even penalize you if appropriate.

So whatever the reason for the hesitation, you should not take advantage of it.

In ArtK78's response above, he says that when balancing over a strong NT, there's usually a valid bridge reason to bid. However, you still have to be careful when there's UI. Just because bridge logic agrees with what the UI suggests doesn't mean you're off the hook. There has to be no other logical alternative. Suppose 60-70% of players of your calibre would balance, while 30-40% would pass, then both are LAs; you must choose the one that is not suggested by the UI. It doesn't matter that you would have gone with the majority regardless of the hesitation -- UI sometimes restricts your choices, unfortunately.

yes just check out some of the cases from the NABC appeal cases

http://bridgehands.com/Laws/ACBL/Duplicate...ebook/index.htm

in most cases once there is a hesitation you box your side in.

[analysismi]

This depends on their card really. Lots of teams haven't discussed their weak NT defense (although they should). If all they have marked down is DONT, this auction almost makes sense. No big point bid for big hand, and weak hand has to balance so makes clubs + another bid with 5-4 distro.

And the fact that you commented on the hesitation before it even (possibly) disadvantaged you tells me you may be too sensitive to this anyway.