[lamford]

---

Cross-IMPs. Opening lead ♠Q. Table Result 3NT-1.

ChCh and CC were out for revenge against SB and RR when they met again online on Friday in the Old Chelsea Online Pairs, sponsored by Splashtop.

RR, North, is not one of the dramatis personae on this hand (hey, I can't get him to feature every week) and the universal contract of 3NT was reached by South, SB. West, ChCh led the queen of spades, which was a dagger to the heart of the contract, and SB could not recover and the defence took one diamond and four spades.

"Should I bid my diamonds?", asked RR. "No you did fine," responded SB, looking at the Bridgemate to see that everyone else had made 9 or 10 tricks. "Do you agree there was a BIT before passing over 3NT, ChCh?" he asked. "Only as required by the skip bid regulations", responded ChCh. "It was probably about half of the required ten seconds."

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" typed SB to the Lobby, also clicking furiously on the Call Director button. OO arrived at the table. "East broke tempo by about 5 seconds before passing over 3NT and he could have been thinking of doubling for a spade lead, but probably decided his spades were not strong enough. This suggested a spade lead to ChCh who took advantage of the UI."

"Rubbish", replied ChCh West, with a slight (online) smirk on his face. "The new Sky-Blue Book states: 'There is no online STOP card or other skip bid warning. Following a jump bid (i.e. a bid at a higher level than the minimum in that denomination), the next player should pause before making their call, and a pause of a notional ten seconds does not constitute unauthorised information.' So SB does not have a leg to stand on. Without UI I can lead what I like."

It is alleged that ChCh sent SB a Whats App message at the end of the session, "Revenge is Sweet", and that he used some new fangled method of it being deleted 2 seconds after being read. ChCh denied that of course. A poll of some experts had most leading the jack of hearts, although a few led the jack of clubs.

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Last things first: as for the allegation about a Whats App message, unless SB can show me how that might be done, I rule the allegation is unsupported and therefore not actionable.

Would a double of 3NT by East call for a spade lead in their system? Do they actually have this agreement?

Quote

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" typed SB to the Lobby

I very much doubt SB typed all those o's. And if he typed a call for the director to the Lobby he needs some education. "Clicking furiously" is just stupid.

I rule that SB is, as usual, fishing for some way to use the rules to rescue himself from his poor result. I also rule that's not going to happen. Result stands.

[pescetom]

 lamford, on 2020-August-16, 09:21, said:

"Do you agree there was a BIT before passing it out, ChCh?" he asked. "Only as required by the skip bid regulations", responded ChCh. "It was probably about half of the required ten seconds."

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" typed SB to the Lobby, also clicking furiously on the Call Director button. OO arrived at the table. "East broke tempo by about 5 seconds before passing out 3NT and he could have been thinking of doubling for a spade lead, but probably decided his spades were not strong enough. This suggested a spade lead to ChCh who took advantage of the UI."

"Rubbish", replied ChCh West, with a slight (online) smirk on his face. "The new Sky-Blue Book states: 'There is no online STOP card or other skip bid warning. Following a jump bid (i.e. a bid at a higher level than the minimum in that denomination), the next player should pause before making their call, and a pause of a notional ten seconds does not constitute unauthorised information.' So SB does not have a leg to stand on. Without UI I can lead what I like."

It is not clear to me why the TD should accept the assertion that East broke tempo or what the EBU rule has to do with the tempo of East, who is not the next player after a skip bid. The reply by Chch seems related to his own tempo, even if the question of SB was ambiguous in this regard. If the Director was more privileged than some others and actually had access to Table History, how long did East pause to be considered a break?

[lamford]

 pescetom, on 2020-August-17, 10:12, said:

It is not clear to me why the TD should accept the assertion that East broke tempo or what the EBU rule has to do with the tempo of East, who is not the next player after a skip bid. The reply by Chch seems related to his own tempo, even if the question of SB was ambiguous in this regard. If the Director was more privileged than some others and actually had access to Table History, how long did East pause to be considered a break?

Sorry, I screwed up the auction when trying to copy the player names from another thread, an excellent suggestion of yours, I recall. Corrected now. If you checked the table history, you would find that East took 6 seconds to pass on the second round.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-August-17, 09:22, said:

Would a double of 3NT by East call for a spade lead in their system? Do they actually have this agreement?

Yes, most strong players would have the agreement that double asks for a spade lead here, especially from a hand that did not bid over 1S.

[Vampyr]

The trouble is that the person who is required to hesitate is NEVER required to keep track of the time she is hesitating. It would be good if BBO added a stop card procedure.

[mycroft]

Well, FVO "never" that do not involve the United States, as you are very well aware.

Now, let's see. Where is BBO located. Can't remember now.

(also, as you are aware, I would love to see it happen. Primarily because I'm an SB (do I hear "you're missing an 'O', there"?); partially because after seeing how much worse the opponents suddenly get at defending against preempts, they might start demanding it IRL when that happens again; but mostly so that I can run a pool on how many "The auction went 1NT-p-3NT, and the software wouldn't let me pass. Fix this NOW!" threads get started...)

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-August-17, 09:22, said:

I rule that SB is, as usual, fishing for some way to use the rules to rescue himself from his poor result. I also rule that's not going to happen. Result stands.

A ruling in a different event convinces me that the Sky-Blue Book is an incorrect statement of the Law. The criteria in deciding on whether there is a BIT is whether there is a variation in tempo compared with a similar situation. Given that the average time taken after 1NT-Pass-3NT on BBO is less than 2 seconds, based on timed records for the North London Club, taking 5 seconds can give UI, and I think here that it did. I would be minded to adjust to 3NT=, on a heart or club lead, which is a logical alternative to the queen of spades. I would also be suggesting that this section of the Sky-Blue Book is rewritten as a pause of less than 10 seconds can give UI, even though the SB (Sky-Blue, not Secretary Bird) book says it can't.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2020-August-17, 16:18, said:

The trouble is that the person who is required to hesitate is NEVER required to keep track of the time she is hesitating. It would be good if BBO added a stop card procedure.

 mycroft, on 2020-August-18, 10:18, said:

but mostly so that I can run a pool on how many "The auction went 1NT-p-3NT, and the software wouldn't let me pass. Fix this NOW!" threads get started...)

A mandatory pause after a skip bid can be implemented in the software without any notion of stop card or any involvement of the player. The player can make his call as quickly as he likes, but it will only become visible to others after 10-12 seconds (randomised).

It's also not written in stone that all skip bids merit the same pause. Maybe there could be a table in future online laws.

[pescetom]

 lamford, on 2020-August-20, 16:14, said:

Given that the average time taken after 1NT-Pass-3NT on BBO is less than 2 seconds, based on timed records for the North London Club, taking 5 seconds can give UI, and I think here that it did. I would be minded to adjust to 3NT=, on a heart or club lead, which is a logical alternative to the queen of spades.

I think this is reasonable.

[axman]

 lamford, on 2020-August-20, 16:14, said:

A ruling in a different event convinces me that the Sky-Blue Book is an incorrect statement of the Law. The criteria in deciding on whether there is a BIT is whether there is a variation in tempo compared with a similar situation. Given that the average time taken after 1NT-Pass-3NT on BBO is less than 2 seconds, based on timed records for the North London Club, taking 5 seconds can give UI, and I think here that it did. I would be minded to adjust to 3NT=, on a heart or club lead, which is a logical alternative to the queen of spades. I would also be suggesting that this section of the Sky-Blue Book is rewritten as a pause of less than 10 seconds can give UI, **even though the SB (Sky-Blue, not Secretary Bird) book says it can't.**

Sky-Blue Book>> and a pause of a notional ten seconds does not constitute unauthorised information.'

the Sky-Blue Book quote does not parse to "pauses less than 10sec do not convey UI"

It does parse "pauses approximately 10sec do not convey UI", leaving the shadows and penumbras unaddressed.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2020-August-18, 10:18, said:

Well, FVO "never" that do not involve the United States, as you are very well aware.

When sensible things are being discussed it goes without saying that the United States is excluded. In bridge regulations, health care, gun control, one man-one vote/voter suppression, the role of religion/separation of church and state, reproductive choice, privacy (15 states have laws regulating what two consenting adults can do in the privacy of their bedroom), animal welfare, food safety... wealth inequality and racism are widespread, but I think that the USA is a world-beater here too (among Western developed countries).

They don’t even play the same sports as everyone else. Field hockey is chiefly played by schoolgirls in skirts, soccer played by schoolgirls not in skirts (boys too sometimes), cricket (what’s that) rugby, well most people have heard of it and they can’t bet on the sports they do play.

[blackshoe]

Of all of those, Vampyr, the only one we're going to discuss here is bridge regulation.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2020-August-18, 10:18, said:

Well, FVO "never" that do not involve the United States, as you are very well aware.

Now, let's see. Where is BBO located. Can't remember now.

(also, as you are aware, I would love to see it happen. Primarily because I'm an SB (do I hear "you're missing an 'O', there"?); partially because after seeing how much worse the opponents suddenly get at defending against preempts, they might start demanding it IRL when that happens again; but mostly so that I can run a pool on how many "The auction went 1NT-p-3NT, and the software wouldn't let me pass. Fix this NOW!" threads get started...)

The stop card could be optionally deployed by the person making the skip bid (or when the SO has really good regulations, a bid in a competitive auction at the 3-level or above). I have always felt that when the stop card is not correctly used, the n tx person should bid whenever they please.

[pran]

 Vampyr, on 2020-August-21, 16:25, said:

The stop card could be optionally deployed by the person making the skip bid (or when the SO has really good regulations, a bid in a competitive auction at the 3-level or above). I have always felt that when the stop card is not correctly used, the n tx person should bid whenever they please.

Most if not all STOP regulations allow LHO to delay his call as if a STOP card had been faced for 10 seconds. Waiting (significantly) longer is still considered a (possible) BIT.

[sanst]

 pran, on 2020-August-21, 23:14, said:

Most if not all STOP regulations allow LHO to delay his call as if a STOP card had been faced for 10 seconds. Waiting (significantly) longer is still considered a (possible) BIT.

There is no stop card in online bridge, at least not at BBO or the Dutch Stepbridge.

[pran]

 sanst, on 2020-August-22, 01:55, said:

There is no stop card in online bridge, at least not at BBO or the Dutch Stepbridge.

I am aware of that, but I referred to regulations (wherever there might be any)

I don't appreciate online Bridge myself (too high risk for foul play) and do not play it.

Do I understand you correct that any player may spend as much time as he like on any of his calls?
If not then there must be some kind of regulation, and the question is really what that regulation says.

[blackshoe]

Online bridge sites seem to develop not regulations in some areas, but customs, which people then treat as if they are regulations. As for figuring out what such not-really-regulations say, good luck with that.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2020-August-22, 07:33, said:

Online bridge sites seem to develop not regulations in some areas, but customs, which people then treat as if they are regulations. As for figuring out what such not-really-regulations say, good luck with that.

I could not find an online Laws book, other than the Sky-Blue Book. I don't think breaks in tempo are easy to diagnose, as someone can temporarily lose connection. And I think online bridge should only be for enjoyment. Competitive but not leading to any prizes or titles.

[pescetom]

 lamford, on 2020-August-22, 14:00, said:

I could not find an online Laws book, other than the Sky-Blue Book. I don't think breaks in tempo are easy to diagnose, as someone can temporarily lose connection. And I think online bridge should only be for enjoyment. Competitive but not leading to any prizes or titles.

The sad thing is that even in the current situation the WBF are not yet seriously committed to developing Laws for either generic online play or controlled venue online play, the latter being the future of competitive bridge. It is the legacy of face to face play that is destined to remain only for enjoyment, IMO.