[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Online

East, RR, led the QD and declarer covered. ChCh, West, won, asked North whether they were playing 4 or 5 card majors and was told 5. He played the two of diamonds and RR, East, won and wrongly played a third round hoping that West could overruff dummy. SB, North, accepted this gift gratefully and discarded a heart from South and ruffed in North. He then played the ace of hearts and ruffed a heart.

Now declarer led the 2 of clubs from dummy, and ChCh took exactly 8 seconds to play the 7 (table log). SB played the king and the contract went one off. SB called the TD, who decided that 8 seconds was not enough of a BIT online; it could be for one of many reasons. ChCh claimed that he had temporarily lost the mouse and was "finding my mouse" (posted in the table chat). He had taken 2, 2 and 1 second for tricks 3, 4 and 5 respectively (longer for trick 2 when he was on lead and had asked North a question).

OO was the appeal director on duty and he also upheld this decision, consulting with the EBU director and club liaison officer who advised:
"In my opinion people hesitate online for all kinds of reasons and I don’t think an 8-second pause is sufficient to adjust the board under Law 73E2."

There is no further appeal now under the North London Club rules. However, I welcome the opinion of forum members, as a similar situation might occur when I am TD and I would want to rule correctly.

The above report, with the dramatis personae changed, is an accurate representation of the events and is not made up.

[shyams]

Caveat: I'm not a TD or an expert on these matters.

I would rule in favour of N/S. There is no obvious reason for West to break tempo. The comment "finding my mouse" is even more justification for ruling against West.

Although the EBU Director's statement "In my opinion people hesitate online for all kinds of reasons and I don’t think an 8-second pause is sufficient to adjust" might align with the rules / laws, there are other factors to consider here.

(1) The BIT was exactly on that particular trick when the tempo was most sensitive / relevant.
(2) The act of losing the mouse is highly improbable (and "finding my mouse" sounds inculpatory). Why would West have misplaced the mouse? Did it drop to the floor OR did it somehow disconnect / become unresponsive? Why did it occur specifically on that trick?

If West was truly unlucky and some highly improbable events led to this situation, perhaps West can accept more bad luck in the form of a score adjustment.

As an aside, I personally feel that any 8-second rule (or 10- or 15-) etc. is meant to ensure the declarer cannot game the rules by playing one of the honours and then calling the TD when it goes wrong (isn't this called "double-shot"?) by claiming significantly smaller tempo variance (of say 3 seconds or 5 seconds). Here the description strongly indicates that declarer did have a genuine problem, West had no reason to hesitate, and the BIT was a factor in declarer playing the King.

[lamford]

The Skyblue Book does not cover "could have been aware" BITs. The only relevant section:

There can be reasons for pauses in an online game, due to the environment, but the TD is entitled to determine that a significant hesitation is nevertheless unauthorised information and rule accordingly.

Of course, when selecting a bid, there is usually something to think about, so BIT times might be different. One player was ruled against because he paused for ten seconds after a stop bid, when he did not always do so. This has been correctly and well clarified in the new Sky Blue Book, but was wrong before.

[mycroft]

I think it is a matter of regulation, and has to stay that way. My ruling process would be different, because I'm under this regulation:

Appendix O said:

Tempo: In general, bids and plays within 10 seconds are considered to be in tempo.

Having said that, this is not a UI situation, it's a mislead opponents situation. So the relevant rules are:

L73D, in part said:

• ... However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.
  
• A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made...

I am not an expert in guessing KJ, or working out card combinations, or working out what hands wouldn't be auto-plays. I do know that there have been several rulings where "the hand you played for has nothing to think about, in fact, the pause doesn't say anything because [there's no hand that needs to think here|these two hands would need to think, and the right play is different for each one]", and they're usually in this sort of situation. So I would go down that path, to see if I can bypass determining if there was a "variation that may work to the benefit of their side", never mind an "attempt to mislead...by hesitancy of a...play".

I don't think we can go as far as D2, with the attempt to explain why the delay, but I'm me. I do think we can rule any of:

• not a meaningful hesitation, especially with the explanation
  
• there is no valid inference from the hesitation, as no hand would have to think about this play
  
• there is no valid inference from the hesitation, as either this hand or that one would have to think, and they each point to a different successful play
  
• there is a valid inference from the hesitation, but LHO didn't have their hesitation, and you took it at your own risk, especially with the "no bridge problem, dropped my mouse" (with or without a "this is a place you're supposed to be especially careful, here's a PP for causing a problem")
  
• we think it's reasonable to take the inference from the hesitation, and we will rule (probably a split score, I assume something like 50-50 because this is a straight guess)
  
• we think it was an actual attempt to mislead, so we rule 100% the other way, PP, and send the hand to National

Along with a couple of others somewhere in that path.

[lamford]

I think that if the player always took about 8 seconds there would be no BIT. However the times taken (when just following suit) were 2, 2 and 1 second.

You certainly present the range of options. Someone with the ace of clubs (and no queen) would have a "genuine hesitation", as he would have to think whether North could have a singleton king, for example, the same North hand with an extra spade and no jack of clubs.

And intent is irrelevant. The lawmakers have carefully made it "could have been aware" to avoid such accusations.

[sanst]

If ChCh usually plays a tempo, an eight second break is unusual. I would believe him if he had written that he had dropped the mouse, which is not very rare. Getting on the floor, picking up the device an getting it to work properly could well take 8 seconds and even longer. But losing? I’ve no idea what it means. So I would start with asking what actually happened.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2021-January-28, 11:23, said:

If ChCh usually plays a tempo, an eight second break is unusual. I would believe him if he had written that he had dropped the mouse, which is not very rare. Getting on the floor, picking up the device an getting it to work properly could well take 8 seconds and even longer. But losing? I’ve no idea what it means. So I would start with asking what actually happened.

He stated, when the director came, two minutes later: "Don't be silly ... finding my mouse". No suggestion he had dropped it.

[barmar]

Sometimes I have trouble finding the mouse cursor on the screen (I have a nice 32-inch monitor), that may be what ChCh meant by "finding my mouse". On Macs you can wiggle the mouse rapidly and the cursor will enlarge to help you find it, I don't know if there's a similar feature on Windows or Linux. But doing this still takes a couple of seconds, although 8 seconds is quite a bit.

[pilowsky]

Concrete thinking again!
Losing my mouse - I have a wireless mouse and when the battery runs low 'I lose it'.

Pausing is only meaningful IRL where your partner can infer something from your mannerisms.

Online, pauses mean absolutely nothing. Poor internet connections, bodgy mice, the phone ringing, children screaming.

Give it a rest.

[mycroft]

Normally I wouldn't respond. But seriously. Partner is irrelevant here, which should be obvious from the original problem. It's a whole other section of the Laws that this hesitation might infract.

I can understand not wanting to read ACBL regulations, but the Laws are worldwide. And the relevant ones were given - and quoted - upthread.

[blackshoe]

shyams, on 2021-January-28, 07:06, said:

Why would West have misplaced the mouse? Did it drop to the floor OR did it somehow disconnect / become unresponsive?

The cat ate it.

[pilowsky]

blackshoe, on 2021-January-28, 16:01, said:

The cat ate it.

I have two poodles.
One of them is lean smart and black. I call him Obama.
The other one is fat white and stupid with a tinge of orange. Guess what I call him.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2021-January-28, 11:45, said:

Sometimes I have trouble finding the mouse cursor on the screen (I have a nice 32-inch monitor), that may be what ChCh meant by "finding my mouse". On Macs you can wiggle the mouse rapidly and the cursor will enlarge to help you find it, I don't know if there's a similar feature on Windows or Linux. But doing this still takes a couple of seconds, although 8 seconds is quite a bit.

I have certainly had the screen freeze for 8 seconds or more in the past. And have lost connection for more than that time. I normally type "lost connection" before playing the next card.

I have changed my mind about the ruling (although people seemed to want to adjust that I speak to). I think that one can NEVER draw an inference from an online hesitation. Just think of the number of times the computer, server, internet, software, whatever does not respond, and West here cannot see the KJ of clubs, and does not know that a BIT could harm declarer. Say that his mouse cursor suddenly disappears - it happens all the time - and then reappears. He will just click on the card he intends to play. He might already have clicked on the card 8 seconds before it appears. Then he COULD NOT BE AWARE unless he is psychic.

How many times have you typed "Partner?" when you think your partner might not be there? I don't think one should ever adjust even if you think it is more likely that the person was trying to pull a fast one. The Blackstone Ratio says that It is better that nine guilty people go free than one innocent person is found guilty. If you adjust for a break in tempo. you will sometimes punish an innocent person. Therefore I think, online only, you infer the reasons for a BIT at your own risk.

I think SB should get this right. ChCh would only hesitate with Qx(x), and would have his reason ready, knowing that SB would call the TD. ChCh would also be keen to recover the trick RR had lost, so would be more inclined than ever to break tempo for just the right amount of time. "Prove it!" was his response. He said that he was looking at cursor designs just before play (this was board 1) and one web page which came to the front had several cursors on it, and he had to find the one that was his computer! He attached a screen shot:

https://www.dropbox....ursors.png?dl=0

[sanst]

There are all kinds of computer glitches. Lamford mentioned quite a few and there are more like a wobbly wifi connection or even a freeze that makes a restart necessary. If Murphy is around there will also be a Windows update . But losing one’s mouse is a new one for me. I think lamford’s reasoning is right. Again a reason why online bridge isn’t an alternative to serious F2F bridge.

[pilowsky]

lamford, on 2021-January-28, 16:49, said:

I have certainly had the screen freeze for 8 seconds or more in the past. And have lost connection for more than that time. I normally type "lost connection" before playing the next card.

I have changed my mind about the ruling (although people seemed to want to adjust that I speak to). I think that one can NEVER draw an inference from an online hesitation. Just think of the number of times the computer, server, internet, software, whatever does not respond, and West here cannot see the KJ of clubs, and does not know that a BIT could harm declarer. Say that his mouse cursor suddenly disappears - it happens all the time - and then reappears. He will just click on the card he intends to play. He might already have clicked on the card 8 seconds before it appears. Then he COULD NOT BE AWARE unless he is psychic.

How many times have you typed "Partner?" when you think your partner might not be there? I don't think one should ever adjust even if you think it is more likely that the person was trying to pull a fast one. The Blackstone Ratio says that It is better that nine guilty people go free than one innocent person is found guilty. If you adjust for a break in tempo. you will sometimes punish an innocent person. Therefore I think, online only, you infer the reasons for a BIT at your own risk.

I think SB should get this right. ChCh would only hesitate with Qx(x), and would have his reason ready, knowing that SB would call the TD. ChCh would also be keen to recover the trick RR had lost, so would be more inclined than ever to break tempo for just the right amount of time. "Prove it!" was his response. He said that he was looking at cursor designs just before play (this was board 1) and one web page which came to the front had several cursors on it, and he had to find the one that was his computer! He attached a screen shot:

https://www.dropbox....ursors.png?dl=0

Good to know. In psychiatry, the TLA BIT means 'bizarre idiosyncratic thinking' (not a joke) e.g, if West takes 11 seconds to bid he must have the Ace of clubs.

[shyams]

sanst, on 2021-January-30, 02:40, said:

Again a reason why online bridge isn’t an alternative to serious F2F bridge.

That's so sweet of you. I was expecting something firmer/harsher like what you wrote in another thread:

sanst, on 2020-October-21, 03:59, said:

Online bridge, which certainly doesn’t appeal to me, has only vaguely something to do with the game as described and regulated by the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. It’s probably a nice alternative to it for some, but use the rules as set by the organizers, who seem to have only partially read the Laws and implemented those parts of these that they thought useful. Don’t try to apply the Laws, because these are not applicable.

It's good to be regularly reminded that what I (and many others) have been playing all these years isn't the real game.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2021-January-30, 02:40, said:

There are all kinds of computer glitches. Lamford mentioned quite a few and there are more like a wobbly wifi connection or even a freeze that makes a restart necessary. If Murphy is around there will also be a Windows update . But losing one’s mouse is a new one for me. I think lamford’s reasoning is right. Again a reason why online bridge isn’t an alternative to serious F2F bridge.

There is online bridge and online bridge - nowadays a lot of people can see whether opponent has dropped his mouse or is just thinking. There is also F2F bridge and F2F bridge, and only with screens can it be called serious IMO.

[sanst]

shyams, on 2021-January-30, 03:42, said:

It's good to be regularly reminded that what I (and many others) have been playing all these years isn't the real game.

Hope you enjoy it. But I stay away from a game where cheating is easy and, worse, it’s done on all levels. There’s a reason for the establishment of the Credentials Advisory Team (CAT), which investigates ‘irregularities’ and ‘coincidences’ at the top level. There are also many complaints about cheating at the lower levels in online bridge, down to partners sitting next to each other. And it’s all almost impossible to prove if they take some rather basic precautions.

[mycroft]

Oh, sure, and there wasn't that level of crap at the tables. Why do we have screens? Why do we not use screens all the time?

It was a different kind of illegal action, and perhaps more "accidental", but if you get to one pair in 50 that isn't "helping themselves" with the [other country] defence to NTs, "what's 2♦?", "helpful" explanations unasked for (but it's sure nice that partner gets to hear it), "careful" explanations that aren't complete (and how often is the incomplete part to the detriment of the careful explaining pair?), wanderers and listeners, multiple emphases of bidding and signalling, all the "play and stare to ensure partner knows you mean it this time" and "play and look at partner to make sure he agrees with your play", and all the other things that make this game what it is (as opposed to what it should be).

If you always and only played in top level competition with screens, and not against any of the pairs that were the reasons for all the technological advancements with screens or the other rules, okay, keep doing that. The rest of us will play where we always did, where "if you need help to beat me, go ahead and take your win, if it means that much to you."

[shyams]

mycroft, on 2021-January-30, 12:58, said:

Oh, sure, and there wasn't that level of crap at the tables. Why do we have screens? Why do we not use screens all the time?

It was a different kind of illegal action, and perhaps more "accidental", but if you get to one pair in 50 that isn't "helping themselves" with the [other country] defence to NTs, "what's 2♦?", "helpful" explanations unasked for (but it's sure nice that partner gets to hear it), "careful" explanations that aren't complete (and how often is the incomplete part to the detriment of the careful explaining pair?), wanderers and listeners, multiple emphases of bidding and signalling, all the "play and stare to ensure partner knows you mean it this time" and "play and look at partner to make sure he agrees with your play", and all the other things that make this game what it is (as opposed to what it should be).

If you always and only played in top level competition with screens, and not against any of the pairs that were the reasons for all the technological advancements with screens or the other rules, okay, keep doing that. The rest of us will play where we always did, where "if you need help to beat me, go ahead and take your win, if it means that much to you."

I'm only allowed one upvote, I feel it is not enough to say what you write is spot on.

This is awesome! Thank you.