[jillybean]

Hi,
this is a recent board from one of my tournaments, North called after East paused for '40 seconds' then passed.
North said after a jump bid , partner is obliged to bid within 10seconds and that this is a wbf law (I haven't found the law yet).

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1NT
 Dbl*  4♥    Pass  Pass
 5♦    Dbl   Pass  5♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  

Dbl alerted as 'monocolor'

Is it a law?
If it is should it apply online, when does it change from "taking inference from hesitation at your own risk" and conveying UI.

ty
jillybean
( I let result stand )

[hrothgar]

There are some jurisdictions where partner is expected to WAIT 10 seconds before bidding over a skip bid. The player who claimed that you are legally required to bid within 10 seconds has never seem P.O. Sunderlan or Barnet Shenkin in action

Regardless of North's unique understanding of the laws, I do think that an adhustment is in order. Too much chance that 5♦ was influenced by the hesitation...

[Echognome]

1. After a stop or skip bid, the next player should pause for about 10 seconds before bidding.

2. Breaks in tempo (BIT) online are just about impossible to establish online. Too many normal distractions. Sorry telephone, bathroom, someone talking to me, etc...

3. If you establish that there was indeed a hesitation, then an adjustment would be warranted. The best way to establish it is to ask EW "Was there a hesitation?" I don't think that East has any reason to hesitate, but that is not the question. Is pass a logical alternative for West? Absolutely! So I would roll back to 4♥ making.

4. I disagree with South's (and West's) bidding, but I don't consider it to be wild or gambling.

[pigpenz]

about impossible online to determine...nuances of the net....at the table yes...Director could be called and procede from there.

[mink]

What North said about the law was rubbish, others have commented on this.

When considering if East submitted an unauthorized information (UI), we should first ask ourselves what the normal tempo in this situation is. When seeing partners double, East was prepared to bid 2♣ as a relay. The 4♥ bid by north is surely surprising, and time is needed to consider what to do now. How much time this is depends a lot on the skill of the player. Beginners tend to ask themselves if they are still required to bid some sort of relay though opp did not pass. I would not object 20 seconds here, but 40 seconds seem quite long. But: How did North measure this time? Did the other players agree to this? If you do not look at a clock the feeling of the time elapsed is quite subjective, and different people or even the same person at differnt times will give differnent estimations of the length of a given period of time.

Ok, lets assume by some means it was possible to prove that East needed significantly longer than "normal tempo" for the pass after 4♥. What conclusions can West draw, and what bids are suggested by those conclusions? Maybe East thought about bidding a long suit of his own. This would not make bidding !D more attractive, as East tends to have fewer ♦ cards then. And if Easts suit was !C, bidding anything else will probably be too high. Or maybe East thought about a double (not very likely, but anything is possible if you do not know North). In this case, bidding 5♦ would be stupid. Or East just has some points and did not know what to do. Here, too, I would not try 5♦ and fail, while 4!H might be down already. You can add the possiblity that East was not thinking at all, but it was an internet problem or East was distracted in this moment.

Conclusion: Nothing what East might have thought about made the 5♦ bid more attractive for West, and this means he did not make use of the UI, if there was one. But I doubt that we can call it "information" as there were so many different possible reasons for thinking and West had no way to tell which was the one thay applied here.

Quote

jillybean2: Is it a law?
If it is should it apply online, when does it change from "taking inference from hesitation at your own risk" and conveying UI.

UI by bidding out of tempo should apply online, too, but there are more uncertainties here than in f2f. "... at your own risk" does apply for the innocent side. But this was not the problem here; we were discussing if it was legal for West to bid 5♦, assuming there was an UI, which is not sure.

Jillibean, you should have stated in your original post what the result of the 5♥ contract was. I assume it was -1, but if it was made, then we have no case at all.

Karl

[Free]

Dunno what their problem is, they had +300, they bid (their own responsibility), now they have -50...

There's no such rule, and there never will be because it's insane! Every player has the right to think, and opponent's jumping doesn't take that right away.

[helene_t]

I think I would have adjusted to 4♥= in real life, since pass is certainly a logical (to say the least) alternative for West. But online, hesitation carries less information. Add to that the issue of whether the hesitation made 5♦ more attractive. This is not obvious. If East was thinking about dbl then 5♦ could be a phantom sacrifice. So I think it's reasonable to let the score stand. This is a difficult case, though.

Some TDs solve this problem by stating that only obvious adjustments will be made. I'm not sure if that's a good approach, though.

[the hog]

Quote Echognome:
After a stop or skip bid, the next player should pause for about 10 seconds before bidding.

This is incorrect! "Should pause...." according to whom?
Firstly there are some bridge federations which have a compulsory 10 second hesitation after a skip bid, and there are others, (eg Australia), which don't. None of these locally introduced regulations apply in on line bridge. Why would you insist that the regulations from one federation rather than from another should apply?

I would allow the result to stand for a number of reasons -
1) we don't know why there was a hesitation, toilet break, kids crying or whatever, really if you look at East's hand he had nothing much to think about
2) North's comment is so stupid and self serving that (s)he deserves a poor result.

[Echognome]

Mea culpa. Am thinking of our standard bidding boxes and cards used here (and I thought in the acbl) where on the back of the stop card it says this. But, not to be above admitting a mistake, I looked up the laws and it says clearly.

Quote

Law 73 A 2 Correct Manner for Calls and Plays

Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism, or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip bid, or on the first trick).

So I guess it's up to our "online" sponsoring organisation. If the tournament is run via the acbl, I would guess the acbl rules apply. If not, I have no idea what applies.

I still think if a hesitation *is* established then there should be an adjustment. Just really hard to show online.

Also, are we to assume that since there's no recommended pause after a skip bid, then hesitations don't exist online?

[the hog]

Quote:
Also, are we to assume that since there's no recommended pause after a skip bid, then hesitations don't exist online?

Well, probably not. Like I said, a hestitation can be due to any reason. If I hesitate for a minute before I bid and then say "phone", or "toilet" or whatever, what are you going to rule? I think its too hard.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Jul 1 2005, 06:10 AM, said:

If I hesitate for a minute before I bid and then say "phone", or "toilet" or whatever, what are you going to rule?

If you say "phone" or "toilet" after your partner made his decision, he may still have been influenced by your hesitation.

But you can avoid putting partner under ethical pressure by saying "phone" or "toilet" before the delay, whether you're actually having a phone call or you need to think about what to bid. Of course, if that habit becomes known, your phone breaks and toilet breaks will put partner under ethical pressure.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, all a little clearer now

[EricK]

I don't think the hesitation suggests that bidding 5♦ on will be better than passing (the most likely reasons for East's hesitation are he is thiking of doubling or thinking of bidding a long suit of his own, probably♠) so I wouldn't adjust. The only bid I would disallow from West would be X, as this caters for anything (bridge related!) partner may have been thinking about.

Eric

[epeeist]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2005, 02:10 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 1 2005, 06:10 AM, said:

If I hesitate for a minute before I bid and then say "phone", or "toilet" or whatever, what are you going to rule?

If you say "phone" or "toilet" after your partner made his decision, he may still have been influenced by your hesitation.

But you can avoid putting partner under ethical pressure by saying "phone" or "toilet" before the delay, whether you're actually having a phone call or you need to think about what to bid. Of course, if that habit becomes known, your phone breaks and toilet breaks will put partner under ethical pressure.

Many tournaments specify no table-talk. Saying "phone" or "toilet" to the table at large is table-talk. Indeed, for the sake of argument, someone who was prone to cheat could agree with a partner that "phone" or "toilet" meant something.

I've sometimes explained to my OPPONENTS in private chat (i.e. by way of apology) what the delay was, but not to the table as a whole until the hand is over when I'll apologize to my partner if there was an unusually long delay.

Technically, "glp" or "typ" or "wdp" (i.e. when the hand is over and cards for the next hand have appeared) is table-talk that could have a secret agreed-upon meaning ("I'll type 'wdp' with a bad hand, 'WDP' with a good hand") but I'm not such a stickler that I refuse to state "wdp" nor call the director when my opponents make such statements in violation of the no table-talk rule.

As for the delay of 40 seconds, online, it's not the delay that is in issue, it is the partner's behaviour in possible acting on UI from that delay. E.g. let's say partner usually always takes 10 seconds for every bid. But one hand, passes instantly after every opponent bid. If I infer that because of the instant passing my partner has a terrible hand (i.e. not just pass-worthy, but 0 points) I'm acting on UI -- even though there's been no delay (rather, lack of delay) and even though it would probably be impossible to prove or decide the issue for the TD.

Similarly, it matters not whether or not the 40-second delay was reasonable, or accidental, or explained by "phone" or "toilet" comment before partner made a bid. If that partner ACTED on UI from the delay then (even if the information was "wrong") the partner has behaved unethically. Of course, then you run the risk of penalizing all creative/unusual bids because one must have been acting on UI...

[lipi]

Quote

Many tournaments specify no table-talk. Saying "phone" or "toilet" to the table at large is table-talk. Indeed, for the sake of argument, someone who was prone to cheat could agree with a partner that "phone" or "toilet" meant something.

I've sometimes explained to my OPPONENTS in private chat (i.e. by way of apology) what the delay was, but not to the table as a whole until the hand is over when I'll apologize to my partner if there was an unusually long delay.

Technically, "glp" or "typ" or "wdp" (i.e. when the hand is over and cards for the next hand have appeared) is table-talk that could have a secret agreed-upon meaning ("I'll type 'wdp' with a bad hand, 'WDP' with a good hand") but I'm not such a stickler that I refuse to state "wdp" nor call the director when my opponents make such statements in violation of the no table-talk rule. laugh.gif

"No table talk" in my opinion should never mean what it literally means. There are far simpler ways to cheat than agreeing that saying "phone" asks for a ♥ lead. It should mean that you are to refrain from talking about anything related to the current hand, since you might unintentionally convey some information when you do so. Also it might be a sensible rule to avoid excessive chatting that distracts the opponents.

[coyot]

lipi, on Jul 29 2005, 05:49 AM, said:

Quote

Many tournaments specify no table-talk. Saying "phone" or "toilet" to the table at large is table-talk. Indeed, for the sake of argument, someone who was prone to cheat could agree with a partner that "phone" or "toilet" meant something.

I've sometimes explained to my OPPONENTS in private chat (i.e. by way of apology) what the delay was, but not to the table as a whole until the hand is over when I'll apologize to my partner if there was an unusually long delay.

Technically, "glp" or "typ" or "wdp" (i.e. when the hand is over and cards for the next hand have appeared) is table-talk that could have a secret agreed-upon meaning ("I'll type 'wdp' with a bad hand, 'WDP' with a good hand") but I'm not such a stickler that I refuse to state "wdp" nor call the director when my opponents make such statements in violation of the no table-talk rule. laugh.gif

"No table talk" in my opinion should never mean what it literally means. There are far simpler ways to cheat than agreeing that saying "phone" asks for a ♥ lead. It should mean that you are to refrain from talking about anything related to the current hand, since you might unintentionally convey some information when you do so. Also it might be a sensible rule to avoid excessive chatting that distracts the opponents.

I think that with the spread of ICQ and MSN and other IM programs, the whole issue of "no-table-talk" is a moot point.

If someone is going to cheat, we'll never stop them - and if they're not too greedy at the cheating, we might even not notice.

I often play online with my S.O. on two computers in the same room - and I've never cheated because I don't NEED the good result. I would NEVER ask my partner to describe his hand.

I will admit, though, to have discussed bidding conventions "on the fly" when we started playing together and there were a lot of things not agreed upon - but rarely would my conscience allow me to do this in a tournament, and never in "weird situations".
(I mean, agreeing answers on RKCB harms noone. I would never tell partner "this double is not penalty so please bid").

(And as for table play, I like to play with "crosstalk allowed" because, after all, we play to enjoy the game and refine our understandings - and it removes most of the fun if you can't bid a slam because you don't know how many aces partner promised...)

[jillybean]

lipi, on Jul 29 2005, 03:49 AM, said:

Quote

Many tournaments specify no table-talk. Saying "phone" or "toilet" to the table at large is table-talk. Indeed, for the sake of argument, someone who was prone to cheat could agree with a partner that "phone" or "toilet" meant something.

I've sometimes explained to my OPPONENTS in private chat (i.e. by way of apology) what the delay was, but not to the table as a whole until the hand is over when I'll apologize to my partner if there was an unusually long delay.

Technically, "glp" or "typ" or "wdp" (i.e. when the hand is over and cards for the next hand have appeared) is table-talk that could have a secret agreed-upon meaning ("I'll type 'wdp' with a bad hand, 'WDP' with a good hand") but I'm not such a stickler that I refuse to state "wdp" nor call the director when my opponents make such statements in violation of the no table-talk rule. laugh.gif

"No table talk" in my opinion should never mean what it literally means. There are far simpler ways to cheat than agreeing that saying "phone" asks for a ♥ lead. It should mean that you are to refrain from talking about anything related to the current hand, since you might unintentionally convey some information when you do so. Also it might be a sensible rule to avoid excessive chatting that distracts the opponents.

In try to enforce ‘NO Table Talk’ during the hands, your opps are often speaking a different language so it’s impossible to know what they are talking about. Chatty tables can hold up other tables or in clocked tournaments result in more unfinished boards. Personally I find chat very distracting, enforcing “NO excessive chat” (and “NO offensive chat”) is too subjective.

Having said all that there are tournaments that do encourage chat so you can pick which you like

[epeeist]

coyot, on Jul 29 2005, 08:13 AM, said:

....
I will admit, though, to have discussed bidding conventions "on the fly" when we started playing together and there were a lot of things not agreed upon - but rarely would my conscience allow me to do this in a tournament, and never in "weird situations".
(I mean, agreeing answers on RKCB harms noone. I would never tell partner "this double is not penalty so please bid").
....

I disagree with your contention -- if I've understood you correctly -- that agreeing on RKCB answers during the bidding "harms no one".

I've played in tournaments and received good results on a hand in which the opposing pair had a blackwood misunderstanding. I've had situations in which it was unclear to me whether a suit had been agreed or not (i.e. whether p was using normal or rkcb). I bid according to my best judgment and accepted the consequences. I would have considered it an ethical wrong to communicate with my partner as to what the bid meant. I have even asked an ACBL TD to confirm that there was no ethical objection to my taking advantage of a known blackwood misunderstanding (i.e., based on explanations of bids, I KNEW there was a misunderstanding, and based on what each thought the bids meant doubled for penalty).

If you allow (or consider not cheating) agreeing on RKCB answers, you may as well just say how many keycards you have and bid 5, small or grand slam directly. Hey, you could even agree to use some hypercomplicated system which explicitly showed all keycards, voids and singletons, but instead of memorizing it, just tell each other what you had. The difference between explaining your RKCB answers during play, and explaining whether a double is for penalty or takeout, is no difference at all.

I'm talking about tournaments. During table play, I'm fine with opponents explaining within reason (e.g. whether or not transfer bids, blackwood or rkcb type, etc.).

[coyot]

epeeist, on Jul 29 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

coyot, on Jul 29 2005, 08:13 AM, said:

....
I will admit, though, to have discussed bidding conventions "on the fly" when we started playing together and there were a lot of things not agreed upon - but rarely would my conscience allow me to do this in a tournament, and never in "weird situations".
(I mean, agreeing answers on RKCB harms noone. I would never tell partner "this double is not penalty so please bid").
....

I disagree with your contention -- if I've understood you correctly -- that agreeing on RKCB answers during the bidding "harms no one".

I've played in tournaments and received good results on a hand in which the opposing pair had a blackwood misunderstanding. I've had situations in which it was unclear to me whether a suit had been agreed or not (i.e. whether p was using normal or rkcb). I bid according to my best judgment and accepted the consequences. I would have considered it an ethical wrong to communicate with my partner as to what the bid meant. I have even asked an ACBL TD to confirm that there was no ethical objection to my taking advantage of a known blackwood misunderstanding (i.e., based on explanations of bids, I KNEW there was a misunderstanding, and based on what each thought the bids meant doubled for penalty).

If you allow (or consider not cheating) agreeing on RKCB answers, you may as well just say how many keycards you have and bid 5, small or grand slam directly. Hey, you could even agree to use some hypercomplicated system which explicitly showed all keycards, voids and singletons, but instead of memorizing it, just tell each other what you had. The difference between explaining your RKCB answers during play, and explaining whether a double is for penalty or takeout, is no difference at all.

I'm talking about tournaments. During table play, I'm fine with opponents explaining within reason (e.g. whether or not transfer bids, blackwood or rkcb type, etc.).

Let me clarify my previous post a bit.

I would NOT askl my partner via ICQ "hey, do we play 1430 or 0314" in any situation, where I would not be 100% sure that his/my 4NT is RKCB and we both know it.

Same goes for leads and signals and stuff, a few basic conventions.

Note that I have a strict approach when it comes to paid tournaments or any large events in general - but if I'm playing in a 40 pair 8 board tourney, I want to enjoy myself - and I think that when we forget to make some basic agreement before the play starts, it is within ethical limits to check with partner.

I would NEVER use it "retrospectively", i.e. bidding something, and, not sure whether partner understands the meaning of the bid, tell him (or ask him about his bid).

I think that there is a big difference between checking whether we play 1430 or 0314 and the situations you describe.

What I wanted to point out is the fact that in e-bridge, it is impossible to prevent partners from communicating if they want so - and therefore all we can do is to behave within standards that we consider ethical.

I enjoy the online bridge most when playing at friendly, crosstalk allowed tables. I am able to switch into "silent" mode when in a tourney - and I have a clear conscience when it comes to not even having "cheated" on anyone.

[epeeist]

coyot, on Jul 29 2005, 06:08 PM, said:

Let me clarify my previous post a bit.

I would NOT askl my partner via ICQ "hey, do we play 1430 or 0314" in any situation, where I would not be 100% sure that his/my 4NT is RKCB and we both know it.

Same goes for leads and signals and stuff, a few basic conventions.

Note that I have a strict approach when it comes to paid tournaments or any large events in general - but if I'm playing in a 40 pair 8 board tourney, I want to enjoy myself - and I think that when we forget to make some basic agreement before the play starts, it is within ethical limits to check with partner.

I would NEVER use it "retrospectively", i.e. bidding something, and, not sure whether partner understands the meaning of the bid, tell him (or ask him about his bid).

I think that there is a big difference between checking whether we play 1430 or 0314 and the situations you describe.

What I wanted to point out is the fact that in e-bridge, it is impossible to prevent partners from communicating if they want so - and therefore all we can do is to behave within standards that we consider ethical.

I enjoy the online bridge most when playing at friendly, crosstalk allowed tables. I am able to switch into "silent" mode when in a tourney - and I have a clear conscience when it comes to not even having "cheated" on anyone.

I understand. I simply disagree with you. I think if you're 100% sure it's rkcb but can't remember if it's 1430 or 0314, tough.

It is my understanding -- anyone can correct me if I'm wrong -- that in face-to-face bridge, if one forgets whether one's partnership is using rkcb 0314 or 1430, or carding agreements (K from AK or A from AK, 4th or 3rd or 5th vs. NT, o/e or standard or whatever), tough. Opponents may ask you; but you may not ask your partner. When the hand is over, before the next, feel free to discuss it. Same on BBO, when the hand's over say "sp, couldn't remember which rkcb, now I know it's 0314" or whatever.

Of course, one's convention card -- whether in f2f or online -- would in some cases answer the question, but if it does not, tough.

Similarly, if in a tournament on BBO one is playing a 40-board tournament, and on one board you forget whether it's rkcb 0314 or 1430, I think, tough. When the hand's over, discuss it and you'll be fine for the other 39 hands. So you make a mistake on one board, no biggie. It certainly shouldn't ruin the experience of the other 39 hands.

If you say it's impossible to enforce, fine. There are lots of things it is impossible or so impracticable as to be effectively impossible to enforce in online bridge. And if you want a tournament that allows table talk to clarify the meaning of bids -- for the benefit of those not using Messenger or being in the same room -- either run such a tournament, or solicit others to run such.