@Martin said:
If they have an announced agreement to lead from shortage, wouldn't a hesitation suggest leading contrary to agreement, rather that following the agreement?
As the lead was as agreed, where is the issue?
I have an agreement to lead S against NT unless I have a good reason not to (S bid by declarer, void in spades, great top of a sequence lead, being such good reasons)
So much so, I am happy to lead a singleton S against 1NT - 3NT bid games.
I too have given hesitations at the start of the bidding, mainly because I will be looking at the previous result and results at difference tables. I normally hang fire until after I have bid, but occasionally I will think that the last board was the last in the, or I thought my LHO was dealer. This is similar to staring into space at the bridge table until someone says, "your turn"
for Online Bridge, the General rule for time "thinking" on a bid, is 30 seconds. Once again, there could be lots of different reasons why you might have spent more time online. Quite often I am checking my emails or newsfeed while I am playing even on EBU tournaments (I have to wait 6-8 min before the round is changed) and might miss the moment the round is changed ( I prefer to use the mobile version rather than my laptop ). You can't determine the REASON for the Long Hesitation ONLINE. Could be even the player is going to the toilet.
@HristoToshev said:
Probabilities are assigned only if the case is clear. When you have unclear factors or can't identify then with certainty, you can't judge based on Probabilities or Likelihood.
Because could be either way - 1) partnership agreement - was announced; or 2) because of the long hesitation - longer time spent thinking; and 3) as a result we have a Lead which can be viewed either ways - you can't adjust the score in one or another direction. The Average score was accepted by both sides. BBO adjustments are designed in this way - Ave=50%, Ave- is 40%, Ave+ is 60%. You can't assign different score than this.
You still continue to view Online Bridge as the replacement of Face-to-Face bridge, Gordon, which is entirely wrong.
Ruling on the balance of probabilities means that you don't have to decline to adjust just because you don't have 100% certainty. UI rulings are not based on complete certainty in any case.
I understand you have your own views about things and don't like to be told otherwise, but I am responding for the benefit of others, so that they are not misled into thinking that what you say is right.
It's possible to assign a different result than the one achieved at the table, even on BBO.
@HristoToshev said:
Probabilities are assigned only if the case is clear. When you have unclear factors or can't identify then with certainty, you can't judge based on Probabilities or Likelihood.
Because could be either way - 1) partnership agreement - was announced; or 2) because of the long hesitation - longer time spent thinking; and 3) as a result we have a Lead which can be viewed either ways - you can't adjust the score in one or another direction. The Average score was accepted by both sides. BBO adjustments are designed in this way - Ave=50%, Ave- is 40%, Ave+ is 60%. You can't assign different score than this.
You still continue to view Online Bridge as the replacement of Face-to-Face bridge, Gordon, which is entirely wrong.
Ruling on the balance of probabilities means that you don't have to decline to adjust just because you don't have 100% certainty. UI rulings are not based on complete certainty in any case.
I understand you have your own views about things and don't like to be told otherwise, but I am responding for the benefit of others, so that they are not misled into thinking that what you say is right.
It's possible to assign a different result than the one achieved at the table, even on BBO.
I accept arguments. This time you're more clearer than above. Well, in the written form there are limitations to what we're trying to say, but we're thinking in the same direction. I prefer to look from the Player's Perspective and to make their Online experience as close as possible to the Face-to-Face bridge and help them to have a pleasant and joyful tournament. I recognise the differences between Online bridge and F2F bridge and the issues which may arise while you play Online. I am on BBO when we were just 2-3k players.
Of course if organisers want to allow undos they should make this clear before the event so that I, for one, will know not to play. I did play in an event organised by the PBU where on Page 207 of the CoC it likely said that undo's were allowed however it was all dripping in "you are being unsporting if you don't permit them" so when the Polish international played the wrong card from dummy at around trick 5 to go down in a slam he asked for an undo. Of course he wasn't using double click and when I declined the TD arrived to tell me it was mandatory to allow it. No hint of enquiring as to how and why this had happened. Anyway I knew not to play in Version 2 of the event.
The argument about time taken to double click is wrongheaded. For a start, as Gordon has remarked it takes very little time, and every alleged misclick avoided will save quite a lot of time.
When the online game started to gather pace a year ago I recall being caught by the software re-arranging the hand and leading something absurd. First of all it was 100% my fault, being too hasty and second of all it didn't occur to me to whine to the TD that I deserved another chance to lead. I settled for apologising to partner at the end of hand and muttering under my breath. The real problem here is players inability to accept the consequences of their actions and/or do their best to mitigate the bad things that might happen
The "hesitation" in Hristo's case was, as I understand it, the pass directly after the 3NT bid, where a player might be thinking of doubling to ask for a spade lead.
The advice that I give in Bridge Club Live is that if you found that you have delayed an action in what could be a tempo-sensitive situation, you should say/type "Sorry - thinking" or "Sorry - distracted" or "Sorry - poor connection", before the action of making the call or playing the card.
Without such clarification, I will assume the player was thinking, and then I just need to decide whether any delay (significant break of tempo) did actually occur. Law 85 will often apply but a decision needs to be made one way or the other.
If we decide that a "hesitation" did occur, we rule as per law 16B, and if we adjust, we adjust to an actual bridge score or a weighting of such scores, and not illegally to an artificial score (Av, etc).
Hristo, the players in your case may have been happy, but there are times when an artificial assigned score can be grossly unfair.
You wrote: "You still continue to view Online Bridge as the replacement of Face-to-Face bridge, Gordon, which is entirely wrong."
I am sure that Gordon, like me, views Online Bridge as an alternative to F2F bridge rather than a replacement, though obviously F2F bridge is currently not possible. But, more to the point, the same Laws apply to both ways of playing bridge, and so should they do. Differences between these ways of playing bridge should only start at the level of Regulations, which are subservient to the Laws.
@Senior_Kibitzer said:
The "hesitation" in Hristo's case was, as I understand it, the pass directly after the 3NT bid, where a player might be thinking of doubling to ask for a spade lead.
The advice that I give in Bridge Club Live is that if you found that you have delayed an action in what could be a tempo-sensitive situation, you should say/type "Sorry - thinking" or "Sorry - distracted" or "Sorry - poor connection", before the action of making the call or playing the card.
Without such clarification, I will assume the player was thinking, and then I just need to decide whether any delay (significant break of tempo) did actually occur. Law 85 will often apply but a decision needs to be made one way or the other.
If we decide that a "hesitation" did occur, we rule as per law 16B, and if we adjust, we adjust to an actual bridge score or a weighting of such scores, and not illegally to an artificial score (Av, etc).
Hristo, the players in your case may have been happy, but there are times when an artificial assigned score can be grossly unfair.
You wrote: "You still continue to view Online Bridge as the replacement of Face-to-Face bridge, Gordon, which is entirely wrong."
I am sure that Gordon, like me, views Online Bridge as an alternative to F2F bridge rather than a replacement, though obviously F2F bridge is currently not possible. But, more to the point, the same Laws apply to both ways of playing bridge, and so should they do. Differences between these ways of playing bridge should only start at the level of Regulations, which are subservient to the Laws.
The Declarer who said that he has "concerns" because the Defender 1 has spent more time than usual before bidding Pass. And this appears to be correct - BBO records 54 seconds before bidding Pass. The reason for this duration I can only assume that the player was "thinking", but the reason could be anything - and the player may lie to me. The Defender 2 - there are two possible scenarios - he followed their agreement, or he just "got it correct" as a result of the actions of his partner (long hesitation). Both situations are equally possible - 1) Could be exactly Long Hesitation and Passing UI and 2) The Defender 2 "got it right" because his partner was slow with his bid. The KEY OBJECTIVE is the TIME the Defender 1 has spent. But the REASON for these a few more extra seconds can be anything. However, the REASON doesn't matter, what matters is the LEAD, which could be either due to their agreement or as a result of "passing UI". Because the situation occurs behind the screens, is impossible to conclude that we're talking about "passing UI". To conclude this you need much more observations on that pair, must occur 15-16 same cases before taking that decision.
Yes, players may lie, but usually they don't. We don't know why Defender 2 led spades unless we ask Defender 2, and then we get an answer. If Defender 2 has no values outside :spade: A, then it might be quite reasonable for him to look for partner's values. We have to decide what Defender 1's "hesitation" suggests, and it may well suggest that the player was considering doubling to ask for a spade lead. So then we need to decide whether a lead of a different suit is a Logical Alternative for Defender 2, and we'd probably have to poll players. If Defender 1 had no values outside spades, then Defender 2 probably did have values elsewhere and might be expected to not lead a short suit.
We get used to polling for logical alternatives, but if you can't think or decide what a "hesitation" might suggest, then that is also good cause to consult with other players (whether TDs or not).
You say that the situation occurred behind screens. Online play is different to playing behind screens.
@Senior_Kibitzer said:
Yes, players may lie, but usually they don't. We don't know why Defender 2 led spades unless we ask Defender 2, and then we get an answer. If Defender 2 has no values outside :spade: A, then it might be quite reasonable for him to look for partner's values. We have to decide what Defender 1's "hesitation" suggests, and it may well suggest that the player was considering doubling to ask for a spade lead. So then we need to decide whether a lead of a different suit is a Logical Alternative for Defender 2, and we'd probably have to poll players. If Defender 1 had no values outside spades, then Defender 2 probably did have values elsewhere and might be expected to not lead a short suit.
We get used to polling for logical alternatives, but if you can't think or decide what a "hesitation" might suggest, then that is also good cause to consult with other players (whether TDs or not).
You say that the situation occurred behind screens. Online play is different to playing behind screens.
this is offtopic.
However - Defender 1 is EBU Legend. His partner - Defender 2, has a very high NGS Grade, in my memories he is with NGS Grade Ace of Spade. Both players are respectful.
Secondly - I did consultations before coming to the final ruling of giving Average score to both sides. One of the other TDs is an ex International WBF TD, the other one was your TD running the EBU tournaments on Saturday. I am trying not to say the names. We agreed that you cannot conclude that the case is "pass UI". We might suspect it, but you can't prove it. It might look logical, but that may not be the reality. That's why the 50% was given to both sides.
Thirdly - this was b17 out of 20 before the break between the Sessions.
Fourthly - was announced that they lead 2/4 against NT. Which once again, is logical to lead the Ace from Ax. But is very unusual when you got a 5 card suit, a minor, to the King.
As a TD is not our jobs to make guesses or assumptions. Our job is to find out the truth and based on what has actually happened to apply the ruling. That's my understanding.
@HristoToshev said: We agreed that you cannot conclude that the case is "pass UI". We might suspect it, but you can't prove it.
You keep saying this, but that is not the basis on which rulings are made. You do not have to "prove" anything, in general you rule on the balance of probabilities. In the case of UI rulings, having determined whether or not there was a break in tempo, you consider what it suggests and whether there was a logical alternative to the action chosen.
You also keep saying "pass UI" which makes me wonder if you think it needs to be deliberate; it doesn't.
@HristoToshev said: We agreed that you cannot conclude that the case is "pass UI". We might suspect it, but you can't prove it.
You keep saying this, but that is not the basis on which rulings are made. You do not have to "prove" anything, in general you rule on the balance of probabilities. In the case of UI rulings, having determined whether or not there was a break in tempo, you consider what it suggests and whether there was a logical alternative to the action chosen.
You also keep saying "pass UI" which makes me wonder if you think it needs to be deliberate; it doesn't.
If I accept that the case is exactly "passing UI" and this was done on purpose, then I accuse both players of cheating. Whether it was deliberate or unintentionally occur - none of us the TDs can conclude that we have "passing UI" based on just 1 board, and this because it occurred online.
The Defender 1 clearly made a mistake spending more time. He accepted the ruling without a protest. His partner tried to protest which confirms that he probably guessed the lead just because of the slow bidding Pass. There's no scenario "pass UI", but the player on the lead realised what he has to do. That's the case.
If the Defender 1 bid immediate Pass - within 30 seconds, then the score will remain unadjusted.
More than half of the tournament the score on that board is in E/W direction - 4 Spades, 2 off. 7-8 scores were 3NT+1 in N/S direction. There was the same score 3NT-3, but S is the Declarer, not N, and the lead is natural from the K of Spade.
A key point is being missed in this (off topic) discussion about online hesitations.
The thrust of a number of the Laws is to ensure that after application of the Laws nobody can be accused afterwards of having "cheated" and got away with it. It runs on the principle of guilty unless provably innocent, in order to protect the reputation of the game, because of the difficulty/impossibility of being sure about motive (accidental/deliberate). Sometimes innocent parties suffer, some would say unnecessarily, in order to acieve this. We accept this. The logic of the Laws says that unless identified otherwise (as in Barrie's example) an online hesitation is the same as a face-to-face hesitation.
@patricks said:
A key point is being missed in this (off topic) discussion about online hesitations.
The thrust of a number of the Laws is to ensure that after application of the Laws nobody can be accused afterwards of having "cheated" and got away with it. It runs on the principle of guilty unless provably innocent, in order to protect the reputation of the game, because of the difficulty/impossibility of being sure about motive (accidental/deliberate). Sometimes innocent parties suffer, some would say unnecessarily, in order to acieve this. We accept this. The logic of the Laws says that unless identified otherwise (as in Barrie's example) an online hesitation is the same as a face-to-face hesitation.
agree with that. But the problem online is that to conclude that there is "Long hesitation" you have to know what that person is doing - that person might be away of his device. Might be distructed by a member of his family (quite often with a question). I can't punish severe that player for longer time spent online until I know the reason for it. It is clear that whoever had such a hand - 7-4-1-1 with KQJ in Spades only may wonder to gamble and bid 4 Spades (lots of did that) or Pass in the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT. It might be exactly long time thinking or something else. You will agree that this is a tough decision to leave 3NT or bid 4 risking to go 4 off. So you can't blame the player for reasonable time thinking. However, online, in general, he should do that within 30 seconds especially in the first round of bids. You don't have a guidance for that.
But the reason for the longer hesitation doesn't matter. It occurred and as a result came the lead. I agree that this pair must be investigated to gather more information to find out if there are other similar cases with unusual leads in NTs from Ax. I have also made leads from Kx or Qx. But never from Ax hoping that my partner holds a long suit starting with KQ.
Hristo, you seem to want to decide whether or not to accuse this pair of "cheating". You don't want or need to do that. You don't want or need to look at or investigate other hands. As Patrick wrote above, and as I preach at TD training courses, the way the Laws are written is such that TDs never need to accuse anyone of anything unethical. That applies especially when adjusting under Law 16B.
If you decide to adjust from 3NT-3 to 3NT+1 having checked that there was no systemic reason for the leader to lead ace and another spade and having polled for logical alternatives, you can tell the defenders that while the defender with the spades was entitled to spend time thinking, the fact that he was considering other actions was unauthorised information to partner and suggests a spade lead, and while he might have considered the lead of :spade: A to be "automatic", enough other players who were polled considered otherwise, and Law 16B instructs you to adjust. It's often worth quoting or explaining White Book 8.16.6.1.
Another way of describing this principle is this: If you take an action that just happens to coincide with an action that an unethical person would take, you will get ruled against, however ethical you are. (I accept that Law 73C1 tells players to not take advantage of partner's hesitations, but it is always sufficient to just rule under Law 16B.)
You wrote: "So you can't blame the player for reasonable time thinking."
Indeed we don't. Players are entitled to think, but the spending of time thinking can have consequences.
You wrote: "However, online, in general, he should do that within 30 seconds especially in the first round of bids. You don't have a guidance for that."
30 seconds is a very long time. The "Stop" procedure uses a time of 10 seconds. It is difficult to quantify what constitutes a significant break of tempo, but certainly anything much longer than the regulation 10 seconds in this case after the "stop" bid of 3NT, would be considered a "hesitation".
I still wonder about that case - the only one thing that I have to conclude that there appears to be a "long hesitation" is the 54 seconds spent before bidding pass without anything else. On the BBO automated tournaments, you have a "warning" message that 30 seconds has passed and asks you to bid. But typically the threshold is 1 min before you're replaced by a robot, because you're "idle". The fact that this caused a discussion indicates that other TDs on County/Congress tournaments have the same problem - how to determine that we have exactly "long hesitation" or the player is away/missing/stuck/frozen screen or just spends more time "thinking". If a player types "thinking" this can also be viewed of "exchanging unauthorised information". I don't think is a good idea to type "thinking" on the first round of bidding, on the second and above that's OK, especially when you enter into a situation when you don't have a prior agreement with your partner.
I would suggest this for the future tournaments - 30 seconds (recommended) for the first round of bidding and further 15 seconds before ruling "long hesitation". Second rounds of bids and above each player should not spend more than 1 min. This ruling should be applied only on EBU tournaments, Blue Points and Green Points events. For the Club nights when you know all the players this can be more relaxed. I have extremely slow players who just play on the club nights. I couldn't teach them to play faster for 1 year, lol!
@Senior_Kibitzer said:
Hristo, you seem to want to decide whether or not to accuse this pair of "cheating". You don't want or need to do that. You don't want or need to look at or investigate other hands. As Patrick wrote above, and as I preach at TD training courses, the way the Laws are written is such that TDs never need to accuse anyone of anything unethical. That applies especially when adjusting under Law 16B.
If you decide to adjust from 3NT-3 to 3NT+1 having checked that there was no systemic reason for the leader to lead ace and another spade and having polled for logical alternatives, you can tell the defenders that while the defender with the spades was entitled to spend time thinking, the fact that he was considering other actions was unauthorised information to partner and suggests a spade lead, and while he might have considered the lead of :spade: A to be "automatic", enough other players who were polled considered otherwise, and Law 16B instructs you to adjust. It's often worth quoting or explaining White Book 8.16.6.1.
Another way of describing this principle is this: If you take an action that just happens to coincide with an action that an unethical person would take, you will get ruled against, however ethical you are. (I accept that Law 73C1 tells players to not take advantage of partner's hesitations, but it is always sufficient to just rule under Law 16B.)
You wrote: "So you can't blame the player for reasonable time thinking."
Indeed we don't. Players are entitled to think, but the spending of time thinking can have consequences.
You wrote: "However, online, in general, he should do that within 30 seconds especially in the first round of bids. You don't have a guidance for that."
30 seconds is a very long time. The "Stop" procedure uses a time of 10 seconds. It is difficult to quantify what constitutes a significant break of tempo, but certainly anything much longer than the regulation 10 seconds in this case after the "stop" bid of 3NT, would be considered a "hesitation".
don't argue on that. BUT there was an announcement that they have an agreement to lead 2/4 (from shortness) vs NT. So it could be either ways valid for the lead - as how they have agreed, which won't be a problem if there wasn't the 54 seconds spent before appearing "Pass" on the BBO records or the player on the lead just realised that he should lead exactly the Ace and not something else. He objected saying that "that's normal to lead from shortness" - not a valid argument, imo. We got a few problems here - longer time thinking (this can be viewed of violation the ethics), the unusual lead (which after the investigation appeared to be a part of their agreement) and whether this was done on purpose, i.e. there's an agreement beforehand or is just a coincidence. Clearly the Defender 1 violated the ethics, which, I believe, was a result of longer time spent thinking. His partner might follow their agreement or might realise to do that as a result of the actions of his partner. I decided to scrap the board - that's why Average. The choice is really tough, because we all know what will happen - we definitely don't want to turn away the players by applying the hardest adjustment. And the trap is that if I went for the adjustment 3NT+1, the decision might not be appropriate based on what happened. Is only one of the players who "violated" the rules, if we accept that longer thinking is a "violation". The player on the lead - I can't determine if he violated the rules (because of their agreement to lead from shortness - Ax is shortness and it doesn't matter whether we like it or not. In any case is an unusual lead) or he realised what he should lead because his partner was slower with bidding Pass in the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT. But his reaction after giving them Ave showed to me that he might realise that he should follow their agreement. Whether am I right or I made a mistake, I spent nearly 40 min to investigate that. Thankfully it occurred just before the 1 hour break so I could discuss this with other two directors.
@HristoToshev said: His partner tried to protest which confirms that he probably guessed the lead just because of the slow bidding Pass.
If so, your ruling was clearly wrong.
the player on the lead said that "is a common to lead from shortness and that this is a part of their agreement". Which is true. Is a part of their agreement.
Gordon, if you're trying to apply that ruling online because s'one spent more time before placing his or her call, you will end up with less players. This is ONLINE Bridge and you already know that you can't verify (you can only assume) the reason why a slow play occurs.
I took a decision not to play on any future online Congresses or events because of the ridiculous movements, which appears to be one and the same. 6x6 or 6x7 Swiss matches - that's ridiculous. Anyway, my observations is that the number of pairs going to play there is declining. If you imply the same ruling assuming that "longer time online taken for placing your call" is always the case which leads to " pass UI" the players will turn away from EBU events. ACBL doesn't have such ruling. And they run tournaments on BBO since 1995.
My first reaction was exactly to assign the common score for 3NT - 3NT+1. You can't go for that based on 54 seconds spent and the reason is that online it could be anything than what anyone of us may assume and secondly - they have the agreement for such leads. So be it, I am wrong, the rules which are for F2F bridge perfectly can be applied for online bridge (completely wrong approach) then don't be surprised that your earnings are falling.
Hristo, you wrote: "BUT there was an announcement that they have an agreement to lead 2/4 (from shortness) vs NT."
I am surprised that they might actually have an agreement to lead the low card from Ax, Kx, Qx!
You wrote: "_This is ONLINE Bridge and you already know that you can't verify (you can only assume) the reason why a slow play occur_s".
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You wrote: "if you're trying to apply that ruling online because s'one spent more time before placing his or her call, you will end up with less players"
We lose players when rulings are wrong or when players think that a correct ruling is unfair. As TDs, we need to make the best rulings we can and explain fully our rulings when players might have cause to think, or do think, a ruling is unfair. What helps is that the Laws themselves are fair, and that is whether in the F2F or online environments.
@Senior_Kibitzer said:
Hristo, you wrote: "BUT there was an announcement that they have an agreement to lead 2/4 (from shortness) vs NT."
I am surprised that they might actually have an agreement to lead the low card from Ax, Kx, Qx!
You wrote: "_This is ONLINE Bridge and you already know that you can't verify (you can only assume) the reason why a slow play occur_s".
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You wrote: "if you're trying to apply that ruling online because s'one spent more time before placing his or her call, you will end up with less players"
We lose players when rulings are wrong or when players think that a correct ruling is unfair. As TDs, we need to make the best rulings we can and explain fully our rulings when players might have cause to think, or do think, a ruling is unfair. What helps is that the Laws themselves are fair, and that is whether in the F2F or online environments.
the lead was Ace from Ax.
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You might think that that's the case - prove it! Can you? Prove that the delay for placing the call "Pass" was 100% as a result of "thinking" and not something else. That player accepted the ruling that the score will be adjusted from 3NT-3.
The Average score is exactly the fair one for that case - because you cannot confirm on 100% or near 100% that there's a correlation between the delay of the bidding and the lead.
This will be the final comment on that topic. We won't agree which is fine:
if this has happened during F2F session, the board will be adjusted to 3NT+1 for the opps. All of us who discussed that board on Saturday agreed and would do that in the club.
for the ONLINE event - you might suspect anything for the reason resulting in the delay, but you can't rule on assumptions. You're supposed to rule on FACTS. I got two facts - delay of bidding Pass and a suspicious lead A from Ax and there's an evidence that this type of lead is a part of their agreement vs NT. Which one will prevail? The pair's agreement, which was announced or the delay of the call?
If I ruled in a favour of N/S, the pair will change their behaviour and will give up. And this is happening on table 3 out of 32 tables in a Swiss movement in the middle of the tournament. Their score is reduced from 98% to 50%. More likely they will choose to be replaced if was given the other way round - just 20% for them. After the adjustment they haven't lost their current position. However, they ended up between 10th and 15th place, I think.
Offtopic: I personally don't think that F2F bridge will be back until September-October. Anyway, I am not planning to organise more events. I've done three projects, all of them are successful, including the last one on Saturday. I had some ideas to restore my survivor competition, but I will negotiate if I choose to go for it directly with BBO. At least I worked before with them using directly the WBF rules.
@HristoToshev said:
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You might think that that's the case - prove it! Can you? Prove that the delay for placing the call "Pass" was 100% as a result of "thinking" and not something else. That player accepted the ruling that the score will be adjusted from 3NT-3.
Again, not for Hristo's benefit since he clearly has no interest in listening to anyone else or changing his view, and seems determined to have the last word, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this, you do not need to "prove" "100%" what caused the delay in order to adjust.
You just need to determine that there was a break of tempo; that it demonstrably suggested the action that was taken over another action; and that there was a logical alternative to that action.
@HristoToshev said:
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You might think that that's the case - prove it! Can you? Prove that the delay for placing the call "Pass" was 100% as a result of "thinking" and not something else. That player accepted the ruling that the score will be adjusted from 3NT-3.
Again, not for Hristo's benefit since he clearly has no interest in listening to anyone else or changing his view, and seems determined to have the last word, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this, you do not need to "prove" "100%" what caused the delay in order to adjust.
You just need to determine that there was a break of tempo; that it demonstrably suggested the action that was taken over another action; and that there was a logical alternative to that action.
A question to you, Gordon - my screen today, just a few seconds ago - because I have multiple screens open on the same browser - BBO has frozen for a min. How will you judge? Really. And as a result because I couldn't reply and join a player in the list, I had the phone call. Best of luck with that.
I am not sure what you are asking. Did your screen freeze or did BBO freeze? Were you playing at the time? Did someone want a ruling?
Were other players waiting for you to call? If so, then all you have to do is say "Sorry - screen froze" before calling.
As an aside, I've just noticed a BBO feature where you can type to play cards or bid. For example "c7" would indicate playing the seven of clubs. This seems to me less prone to missing or card reordering, and less hassle than needing to confirm everything.
For those with a keyboard and a habit of mis-clicking, perhaps it's worth recommending?
Took a decision to halt for a while, otherwise we'll start to abuse each other (not productive at all). Will create a separate topic because Online Bridge is far more complex than F2F bridge (because you have more factors which you should take into account before ruling). There are, quite often, strong players, who insist that there's "long hesitation" online, hoping to gain a better score.
Another example (because of a late explanation, otherwise being alerted on time) was that a player who put his explanation with a delay, got a call after the cards were played. The explanation was that the "missed" to see the explanation and the action could be otherwise. They could go for Undo during the bidding. In this case both sides made mistakes - late explanation, followed by the hope of achieving a better score by the other side, once they saw the score, they called the TD for ruling. However, I am busy at the moment, will give you evidence why ONLINE you cannot distinguish whether there's the case of "long hesitation" (or done by purpose, i.e. - "passing UI") or the delay is due to a technical issue (internet connection, old device, old software, opened many windows on the browser, BBO freezes from time to time).
Whatever else you write, you must get out of this habit of suggesting that UI needs to be passed on purpose in order to merit an adjustment. Following the wording of Law 16 will avoid this trap.
Comments
for Online Bridge, the General rule for time "thinking" on a bid, is 30 seconds. Once again, there could be lots of different reasons why you might have spent more time online. Quite often I am checking my emails or newsfeed while I am playing even on EBU tournaments (I have to wait 6-8 min before the round is changed) and might miss the moment the round is changed ( I prefer to use the mobile version rather than my laptop ). You can't determine the REASON for the Long Hesitation ONLINE. Could be even the player is going to the toilet.
Ruling on the balance of probabilities means that you don't have to decline to adjust just because you don't have 100% certainty. UI rulings are not based on complete certainty in any case.
I understand you have your own views about things and don't like to be told otherwise, but I am responding for the benefit of others, so that they are not misled into thinking that what you say is right.
It's possible to assign a different result than the one achieved at the table, even on BBO.
I accept arguments. This time you're more clearer than above. Well, in the written form there are limitations to what we're trying to say, but we're thinking in the same direction. I prefer to look from the Player's Perspective and to make their Online experience as close as possible to the Face-to-Face bridge and help them to have a pleasant and joyful tournament. I recognise the differences between Online bridge and F2F bridge and the issues which may arise while you play Online. I am on BBO when we were just 2-3k players.
Of course if organisers want to allow undos they should make this clear before the event so that I, for one, will know not to play. I did play in an event organised by the PBU where on Page 207 of the CoC it likely said that undo's were allowed however it was all dripping in "you are being unsporting if you don't permit them" so when the Polish international played the wrong card from dummy at around trick 5 to go down in a slam he asked for an undo. Of course he wasn't using double click and when I declined the TD arrived to tell me it was mandatory to allow it. No hint of enquiring as to how and why this had happened. Anyway I knew not to play in Version 2 of the event.
The argument about time taken to double click is wrongheaded. For a start, as Gordon has remarked it takes very little time, and every alleged misclick avoided will save quite a lot of time.
When the online game started to gather pace a year ago I recall being caught by the software re-arranging the hand and leading something absurd. First of all it was 100% my fault, being too hasty and second of all it didn't occur to me to whine to the TD that I deserved another chance to lead. I settled for apologising to partner at the end of hand and muttering under my breath. The real problem here is players inability to accept the consequences of their actions and/or do their best to mitigate the bad things that might happen
The "hesitation" in Hristo's case was, as I understand it, the pass directly after the 3NT bid, where a player might be thinking of doubling to ask for a spade lead.
The advice that I give in Bridge Club Live is that if you found that you have delayed an action in what could be a tempo-sensitive situation, you should say/type "Sorry - thinking" or "Sorry - distracted" or "Sorry - poor connection", before the action of making the call or playing the card.
Without such clarification, I will assume the player was thinking, and then I just need to decide whether any delay (significant break of tempo) did actually occur. Law 85 will often apply but a decision needs to be made one way or the other.
If we decide that a "hesitation" did occur, we rule as per law 16B, and if we adjust, we adjust to an actual bridge score or a weighting of such scores, and not illegally to an artificial score (Av, etc).
Hristo, the players in your case may have been happy, but there are times when an artificial assigned score can be grossly unfair.
You wrote: "You still continue to view Online Bridge as the replacement of Face-to-Face bridge, Gordon, which is entirely wrong."
I am sure that Gordon, like me, views Online Bridge as an alternative to F2F bridge rather than a replacement, though obviously F2F bridge is currently not possible. But, more to the point, the same Laws apply to both ways of playing bridge, and so should they do. Differences between these ways of playing bridge should only start at the level of Regulations, which are subservient to the Laws.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The Declarer who said that he has "concerns" because the Defender 1 has spent more time than usual before bidding Pass. And this appears to be correct - BBO records 54 seconds before bidding Pass. The reason for this duration I can only assume that the player was "thinking", but the reason could be anything - and the player may lie to me. The Defender 2 - there are two possible scenarios - he followed their agreement, or he just "got it correct" as a result of the actions of his partner (long hesitation). Both situations are equally possible - 1) Could be exactly Long Hesitation and Passing UI and 2) The Defender 2 "got it right" because his partner was slow with his bid. The KEY OBJECTIVE is the TIME the Defender 1 has spent. But the REASON for these a few more extra seconds can be anything. However, the REASON doesn't matter, what matters is the LEAD, which could be either due to their agreement or as a result of "passing UI". Because the situation occurs behind the screens, is impossible to conclude that we're talking about "passing UI". To conclude this you need much more observations on that pair, must occur 15-16 same cases before taking that decision.
Yes, players may lie, but usually they don't. We don't know why Defender 2 led spades unless we ask Defender 2, and then we get an answer. If Defender 2 has no values outside :spade: A, then it might be quite reasonable for him to look for partner's values. We have to decide what Defender 1's "hesitation" suggests, and it may well suggest that the player was considering doubling to ask for a spade lead. So then we need to decide whether a lead of a different suit is a Logical Alternative for Defender 2, and we'd probably have to poll players. If Defender 1 had no values outside spades, then Defender 2 probably did have values elsewhere and might be expected to not lead a short suit.
We get used to polling for logical alternatives, but if you can't think or decide what a "hesitation" might suggest, then that is also good cause to consult with other players (whether TDs or not).
You say that the situation occurred behind screens. Online play is different to playing behind screens.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
this is offtopic.
However - Defender 1 is EBU Legend. His partner - Defender 2, has a very high NGS Grade, in my memories he is with NGS Grade Ace of Spade. Both players are respectful.
Secondly - I did consultations before coming to the final ruling of giving Average score to both sides. One of the other TDs is an ex International WBF TD, the other one was your TD running the EBU tournaments on Saturday. I am trying not to say the names. We agreed that you cannot conclude that the case is "pass UI". We might suspect it, but you can't prove it. It might look logical, but that may not be the reality. That's why the 50% was given to both sides.
Thirdly - this was b17 out of 20 before the break between the Sessions.
Fourthly - was announced that they lead 2/4 against NT. Which once again, is logical to lead the Ace from Ax. But is very unusual when you got a 5 card suit, a minor, to the King.
As a TD is not our jobs to make guesses or assumptions. Our job is to find out the truth and based on what has actually happened to apply the ruling. That's my understanding.
You keep saying this, but that is not the basis on which rulings are made. You do not have to "prove" anything, in general you rule on the balance of probabilities. In the case of UI rulings, having determined whether or not there was a break in tempo, you consider what it suggests and whether there was a logical alternative to the action chosen.
You also keep saying "pass UI" which makes me wonder if you think it needs to be deliberate; it doesn't.
If I accept that the case is exactly "passing UI" and this was done on purpose, then I accuse both players of cheating. Whether it was deliberate or unintentionally occur - none of us the TDs can conclude that we have "passing UI" based on just 1 board, and this because it occurred online.
The Defender 1 clearly made a mistake spending more time. He accepted the ruling without a protest. His partner tried to protest which confirms that he probably guessed the lead just because of the slow bidding Pass. There's no scenario "pass UI", but the player on the lead realised what he has to do. That's the case.
If the Defender 1 bid immediate Pass - within 30 seconds, then the score will remain unadjusted.
More than half of the tournament the score on that board is in E/W direction - 4 Spades, 2 off. 7-8 scores were 3NT+1 in N/S direction. There was the same score 3NT-3, but S is the Declarer, not N, and the lead is natural from the K of Spade.
A key point is being missed in this (off topic) discussion about online hesitations.
The thrust of a number of the Laws is to ensure that after application of the Laws nobody can be accused afterwards of having "cheated" and got away with it. It runs on the principle of guilty unless provably innocent, in order to protect the reputation of the game, because of the difficulty/impossibility of being sure about motive (accidental/deliberate). Sometimes innocent parties suffer, some would say unnecessarily, in order to acieve this. We accept this. The logic of the Laws says that unless identified otherwise (as in Barrie's example) an online hesitation is the same as a face-to-face hesitation.
agree with that. But the problem online is that to conclude that there is "Long hesitation" you have to know what that person is doing - that person might be away of his device. Might be distructed by a member of his family (quite often with a question). I can't punish severe that player for longer time spent online until I know the reason for it. It is clear that whoever had such a hand - 7-4-1-1 with KQJ in Spades only may wonder to gamble and bid 4 Spades (lots of did that) or Pass in the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT. It might be exactly long time thinking or something else. You will agree that this is a tough decision to leave 3NT or bid 4 risking to go 4 off. So you can't blame the player for reasonable time thinking. However, online, in general, he should do that within 30 seconds especially in the first round of bids. You don't have a guidance for that.
But the reason for the longer hesitation doesn't matter. It occurred and as a result came the lead. I agree that this pair must be investigated to gather more information to find out if there are other similar cases with unusual leads in NTs from Ax. I have also made leads from Kx or Qx. But never from Ax hoping that my partner holds a long suit starting with KQ.
Hristo, you seem to want to decide whether or not to accuse this pair of "cheating". You don't want or need to do that. You don't want or need to look at or investigate other hands. As Patrick wrote above, and as I preach at TD training courses, the way the Laws are written is such that TDs never need to accuse anyone of anything unethical. That applies especially when adjusting under Law 16B.
If you decide to adjust from 3NT-3 to 3NT+1 having checked that there was no systemic reason for the leader to lead ace and another spade and having polled for logical alternatives, you can tell the defenders that while the defender with the spades was entitled to spend time thinking, the fact that he was considering other actions was unauthorised information to partner and suggests a spade lead, and while he might have considered the lead of :spade: A to be "automatic", enough other players who were polled considered otherwise, and Law 16B instructs you to adjust. It's often worth quoting or explaining White Book 8.16.6.1.
Another way of describing this principle is this: If you take an action that just happens to coincide with an action that an unethical person would take, you will get ruled against, however ethical you are. (I accept that Law 73C1 tells players to not take advantage of partner's hesitations, but it is always sufficient to just rule under Law 16B.)
You wrote: "So you can't blame the player for reasonable time thinking."
Indeed we don't. Players are entitled to think, but the spending of time thinking can have consequences.
You wrote: "However, online, in general, he should do that within 30 seconds especially in the first round of bids. You don't have a guidance for that."
30 seconds is a very long time. The "Stop" procedure uses a time of 10 seconds. It is difficult to quantify what constitutes a significant break of tempo, but certainly anything much longer than the regulation 10 seconds in this case after the "stop" bid of 3NT, would be considered a "hesitation".
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I still wonder about that case - the only one thing that I have to conclude that there appears to be a "long hesitation" is the 54 seconds spent before bidding pass without anything else. On the BBO automated tournaments, you have a "warning" message that 30 seconds has passed and asks you to bid. But typically the threshold is 1 min before you're replaced by a robot, because you're "idle". The fact that this caused a discussion indicates that other TDs on County/Congress tournaments have the same problem - how to determine that we have exactly "long hesitation" or the player is away/missing/stuck/frozen screen or just spends more time "thinking". If a player types "thinking" this can also be viewed of "exchanging unauthorised information". I don't think is a good idea to type "thinking" on the first round of bidding, on the second and above that's OK, especially when you enter into a situation when you don't have a prior agreement with your partner.
I would suggest this for the future tournaments - 30 seconds (recommended) for the first round of bidding and further 15 seconds before ruling "long hesitation". Second rounds of bids and above each player should not spend more than 1 min. This ruling should be applied only on EBU tournaments, Blue Points and Green Points events. For the Club nights when you know all the players this can be more relaxed. I have extremely slow players who just play on the club nights. I couldn't teach them to play faster for 1 year, lol!
don't argue on that. BUT there was an announcement that they have an agreement to lead 2/4 (from shortness) vs NT. So it could be either ways valid for the lead - as how they have agreed, which won't be a problem if there wasn't the 54 seconds spent before appearing "Pass" on the BBO records or the player on the lead just realised that he should lead exactly the Ace and not something else. He objected saying that "that's normal to lead from shortness" - not a valid argument, imo. We got a few problems here - longer time thinking (this can be viewed of violation the ethics), the unusual lead (which after the investigation appeared to be a part of their agreement) and whether this was done on purpose, i.e. there's an agreement beforehand or is just a coincidence. Clearly the Defender 1 violated the ethics, which, I believe, was a result of longer time spent thinking. His partner might follow their agreement or might realise to do that as a result of the actions of his partner. I decided to scrap the board - that's why Average. The choice is really tough, because we all know what will happen - we definitely don't want to turn away the players by applying the hardest adjustment. And the trap is that if I went for the adjustment 3NT+1, the decision might not be appropriate based on what happened. Is only one of the players who "violated" the rules, if we accept that longer thinking is a "violation". The player on the lead - I can't determine if he violated the rules (because of their agreement to lead from shortness - Ax is shortness and it doesn't matter whether we like it or not. In any case is an unusual lead) or he realised what he should lead because his partner was slower with bidding Pass in the auction 1NT-Pass-3NT. But his reaction after giving them Ave showed to me that he might realise that he should follow their agreement. Whether am I right or I made a mistake, I spent nearly 40 min to investigate that. Thankfully it occurred just before the 1 hour break so I could discuss this with other two directors.
Their lead agreements have nothing to do with the choice of suit.
If so, your ruling was clearly wrong.
the player on the lead said that "is a common to lead from shortness and that this is a part of their agreement". Which is true. Is a part of their agreement.
Gordon, if you're trying to apply that ruling online because s'one spent more time before placing his or her call, you will end up with less players. This is ONLINE Bridge and you already know that you can't verify (you can only assume) the reason why a slow play occurs.
I took a decision not to play on any future online Congresses or events because of the ridiculous movements, which appears to be one and the same. 6x6 or 6x7 Swiss matches - that's ridiculous. Anyway, my observations is that the number of pairs going to play there is declining. If you imply the same ruling assuming that "longer time online taken for placing your call" is always the case which leads to " pass UI" the players will turn away from EBU events. ACBL doesn't have such ruling. And they run tournaments on BBO since 1995.
My first reaction was exactly to assign the common score for 3NT - 3NT+1. You can't go for that based on 54 seconds spent and the reason is that online it could be anything than what anyone of us may assume and secondly - they have the agreement for such leads. So be it, I am wrong, the rules which are for F2F bridge perfectly can be applied for online bridge (completely wrong approach) then don't be surprised that your earnings are falling.
Hristo, you wrote: "BUT there was an announcement that they have an agreement to lead 2/4 (from shortness) vs NT."
I am surprised that they might actually have an agreement to lead the low card from Ax, Kx, Qx!
You wrote: "_This is ONLINE Bridge and you already know that you can't verify (you can only assume) the reason why a slow play occur_s".
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You wrote: "if you're trying to apply that ruling online because s'one spent more time before placing his or her call, you will end up with less players"
We lose players when rulings are wrong or when players think that a correct ruling is unfair. As TDs, we need to make the best rulings we can and explain fully our rulings when players might have cause to think, or do think, a ruling is unfair. What helps is that the Laws themselves are fair, and that is whether in the F2F or online environments.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
the lead was Ace from Ax.
Without a disclaimer as I suggested upthread, it is very reasonable to assume that the delay is due to thinking. Internet connections these days are far better than they were 20 years ago.
You might think that that's the case - prove it! Can you? Prove that the delay for placing the call "Pass" was 100% as a result of "thinking" and not something else. That player accepted the ruling that the score will be adjusted from 3NT-3.
The Average score is exactly the fair one for that case - because you cannot confirm on 100% or near 100% that there's a correlation between the delay of the bidding and the lead.
This will be the final comment on that topic. We won't agree which is fine:
If I ruled in a favour of N/S, the pair will change their behaviour and will give up. And this is happening on table 3 out of 32 tables in a Swiss movement in the middle of the tournament. Their score is reduced from 98% to 50%. More likely they will choose to be replaced if was given the other way round - just 20% for them. After the adjustment they haven't lost their current position. However, they ended up between 10th and 15th place, I think.
Offtopic: I personally don't think that F2F bridge will be back until September-October. Anyway, I am not planning to organise more events. I've done three projects, all of them are successful, including the last one on Saturday. I had some ideas to restore my survivor competition, but I will negotiate if I choose to go for it directly with BBO. At least I worked before with them using directly the WBF rules.
Again, not for Hristo's benefit since he clearly has no interest in listening to anyone else or changing his view, and seems determined to have the last word, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this, you do not need to "prove" "100%" what caused the delay in order to adjust.
You just need to determine that there was a break of tempo; that it demonstrably suggested the action that was taken over another action; and that there was a logical alternative to that action.
A question to you, Gordon - my screen today, just a few seconds ago - because I have multiple screens open on the same browser - BBO has frozen for a min. How will you judge? Really. And as a result because I couldn't reply and join a player in the list, I had the phone call. Best of luck with that.
I am not sure what you are asking. Did your screen freeze or did BBO freeze? Were you playing at the time? Did someone want a ruling?
Were other players waiting for you to call? If so, then all you have to do is say "Sorry - screen froze" before calling.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
As an aside, I've just noticed a BBO feature where you can type to play cards or bid. For example "c7" would indicate playing the seven of clubs. This seems to me less prone to missing or card reordering, and less hassle than needing to confirm everything.
For those with a keyboard and a habit of mis-clicking, perhaps it's worth recommending?
Good tip - there is more information about this at https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/54697-keyboard-biddingplays-with-new-bbo/
Took a decision to halt for a while, otherwise we'll start to abuse each other (not productive at all). Will create a separate topic because Online Bridge is far more complex than F2F bridge (because you have more factors which you should take into account before ruling). There are, quite often, strong players, who insist that there's "long hesitation" online, hoping to gain a better score.
Another example (because of a late explanation, otherwise being alerted on time) was that a player who put his explanation with a delay, got a call after the cards were played. The explanation was that the "missed" to see the explanation and the action could be otherwise. They could go for Undo during the bidding. In this case both sides made mistakes - late explanation, followed by the hope of achieving a better score by the other side, once they saw the score, they called the TD for ruling. However, I am busy at the moment, will give you evidence why ONLINE you cannot distinguish whether there's the case of "long hesitation" (or done by purpose, i.e. - "passing UI") or the delay is due to a technical issue (internet connection, old device, old software, opened many windows on the browser, BBO freezes from time to time).
Whatever else you write, you must get out of this habit of suggesting that UI needs to be passed on purpose in order to merit an adjustment. Following the wording of Law 16 will avoid this trap.