[pescetom]

MP
board and auction

A typical BBO tournament situation?

East 1NT no explanation, West thinks for about 45 seconds and then bids 2♣ no explanation.
East in tempo 2♥ and West an instant 3♣.
South requests (with the appropriate click mechanism) explanation of 1NT, 2♣ and 3♣.
After another long pause 2♣ is explained as "Generic request", no explanation of the rest.
South calls TD pointing out the above information, TD arrives and nothing happens.
South passes and EW make 3♣+2.

Sure, NS were not damaged here, unless you think West was bound to rebid the higher ranking suit, or that 3NT was an LA for East.
But was there nothing else for TD to do or say?
NS have (perhaps rightly) no idea what TD said to EW, but EW received no penalty.
TD has the timing information, unlike a F2F tournament.

[mycroft]

I'd first want to know the regs of the tournament and what is Alertable for 2♣.

And the skill level of E-W. And their actual agreement (likely East is going to be more helpful here).

And I hope the TD explained what the problem was to E/W, even if "no damage".

Now the ACBL has a rule that says that 2♣, if opener will respond with information about major length, is not Alertable - but any rebid by responder that does not guarantee a 4+card major *is*. So, if it's an ACBL pair in a FIGB club, yeah, maybe, maybe. (but then, "announce NT range" and "feel free to explain even things that aren't Alertable FtF, since your partner doesn't see it"...)

But the timing matches "I don't know how to show my hand", followed by "but I do know I need to pull 2♥".

Now, the "common" agreement for this auction in the ACBL is "4 spades, longer clubs, GF". But 3NT is very likely to make too...

Another reminder (given the players' "names") that *giving UI through tempo break*, if not intentional, is not an infraction - *using it* is. So maybe it's East's action that needs to be discussed by the TD? Unless South is accusing "offender" of doing what they did deliberately - in which case, better keep that between South and the TD (and whoever the TD chooses to let know).

[johnu]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-04, 15:34, said:

East 1NT no explanation, West thinks for about 45 seconds and then bids 2♣ no explanation.
East in tempo 2♥ and West an instant 3♣.

Obviously a quick 2♣ response is Stayman, and a slow Stayman response is clubs. A very slow 2♣ means don't bid over my 3♣ rebid. Just a slow 2♣ is invitational so opener could try 3NT with a maximum.

In civilized bridge, this isn't done so blatantly.

 pescetom, on 2024-April-04, 15:34, said:

Sure, NS were not damaged here, unless you think West was bound to rebid the higher ranking suit.

Was N/S damaged? How does 1NT do? Does E/W have a legitimate way to stop in 3♣?

[jillybean]

You are hoping to play Bridge? There is no time or seemingly incentive in an online game to address infractions, other than gross cheating.
Nothing is off limits, you can't take it seriously.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-04, 20:14, said:

You are hoping to play Bridge? There is no time or seemingly incentive in an online game to address infractions, other than gross cheating.
Nothing is off limits, you can't take it seriously.

It's nonsense that there is no time: this was 8 minutes per board clocked, TD had all the time in the world to investigate and decide.
And in appearance, what EW did *is* gross, without resorting to the ch* word. Sure, they might have a convincing explanation (we're beginners and we don't know what we are doing, or whatever).

[pescetom]

 johnu, on 2024-April-04, 18:05, said:

Was N/S damaged? How does 1NT do? Does E/W have a legitimate way to stop in 3♣?

3NT goes down but 5C makes, both real world and double dummy.

I would imagine that 2S would be taken as a transfer to 3C even if this is a pickup pair (it's a very normal agreement in Italy). A sophisticated partner might rebid 2NT to show like/dislike, but would also know to pass a successive 3C.

I doubt NS were damaged, unless TD takes the line that 3NT is an LA after 3C and is less suggested by the slow 2C than 5C is. I still think EW deserve punishment, unless they explained much better to TD than to opponents.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-April-04, 16:00, said:

I'd first want to know the regs of the tournament and what is Alertable for 2♣.

And the skill level of E-W. And their actual agreement (likely East is going to be more helpful here).

And I hope the TD explained what the problem was to E/W, even if "no damage".

Now the ACBL has a rule that says that 2♣, if opener will respond with information about major length, is not Alertable - but any rebid by responder that does not guarantee a 4+card major *is*. So, if it's an ACBL pair in a FIGB club, yeah, maybe, maybe. (but then, "announce NT range" and "feel free to explain even things that aren't Alertable FtF, since your partner doesn't see it"...)

But the timing matches "I don't know how to show my hand", followed by "but I do know I need to pull 2♥".

Now, the "common" agreement for this auction in the ACBL is "4 spades, longer clubs, GF". But 3NT is very likely to make too...

Another reminder (given the players' "names") that *giving UI through tempo break*, if not intentional, is not an infraction - *using it* is. So maybe it's East's action that needs to be discussed by the TD? Unless South is accusing "offender" of doing what they did deliberately - in which case, better keep that between South and the TD (and whoever the TD chooses to let know).

I can help with some of that.

The Tournament regs are to self-alert all artificial calls and any agreement that might be unexpected, plus the usual NT ranges, 1m openings etc. Nevertheless it is widespread not to alert 1NT 15-17 or 2C Stayman. Not supplying an explanation when requested is another matter, however.

Skill level of EW is uncertain, but both nicknames are over 15 years old and the pair exceeded 50% in this tournament.

Their actual agreement: ask the TD, if she had any better luck. East seemed to think it was Stayman after 2C, but no longer after 3C. West claimed (after some thought) that it was "Generic enquiry", whatever that means.

I'm a bit surprised that "4 spades, longer clubs GF" is normal in ACBL. Here I think it would be "5 clubs GF, does not guarantee spades". For a few, "invitational with spades and clubs". In any case, pass with East's hand is not an LA.

Sure it's East's action of pass that is of most obvious concern.

[nullve]

Stayman followed by 3♣ was the only way to stop in 3♣ after a 1N opening in the Goren system I learnt as a beginner.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-05, 06:22, said:

It's nonsense that there is no time: this was 8 minutes per board clocked, TD had all the time in the world to investigate and decide.
And in appearance, what EW did *is* gross, without resorting to the ch* word. Sure, they might have a convincing explanation (we're beginners and we don't know what we are doing, or whatever).

How many tables were in play?
I completely agree that EW actions were gross but this, sadly, is how it is.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-05, 08:51, said:

How many tables were in play?

Less than 30 tables, clocked and slow, a fairly peaceful and self regulating tournament, no big deal for a professional director. Not near the end either.

[pescetom]

 nullve, on 2024-April-05, 07:14, said:

Stayman followed by 3♣ was the only way to stop in 3♣ after a 1N opening in the Goren system I learnt as a beginner.

Thanks. Would it have taken you 45 seconds to remember it ?
I can't imagine any Italian intermediates today thinking that way, though. They almost all play 2S as a transfer to clubs and 2C then 3C as forcing with 5 card clubs.

Some better partnerships would also play that 1NT 3C shows exactly this hand (invitational with minors 5-5).

[jillybean]

Just to clarify, was this a sanctioned game?

[Douglas43]

 nullve, on 2024-April-05, 07:14, said:

L
Stayman followed by 3♣ was the only way to stop in 3♣ after a 1N opening in the Goren system I learnt as a beginner.

Looks like a normal auction in the 1970s in the UK.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-05, 11:18, said:

Just to clarify, was this a sanctioned game?

Not by WBF or an RA, otherwise I would not be writing here.
Nor was it organized by BBO.
But for payment nevertheless, and with a good number of drum rolls about disclosure and ethics too.

[smerriman]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-05, 09:31, said:

Thanks. Would it have taken you 45 seconds to remember it ?
I can't imagine any Italian intermediates today thinking that way, though. They almost all play 2S as a transfer to clubs and 2C then 3C as forcing with 5 card clubs.

Some better partnerships would also play that 1NT 3C shows exactly this hand (invitational with minors 5-5).

If they played either of those, would it have them 45 seconds to remember, too?

There are two reasons for a delay online:

a) they were distracted from the screen
b) they didn't know what to bid

a) is many, many times more likely. Of course, this doesn't mean it absolves partner from being constrained in any way when making a judgement; just that I wouldn't assume in these discussions it implies they were thinking for 45 seconds.

What are the options?

1) This is a partnership who have agreed that a slow 2♣ and instant 3♣ is weak with clubs. Surely, there's a 0% chance this is the case; it would be easy to prove cheating by looking at hand records, and there's no gain anyway when you can bid these hands normally.

2) This is a partnership who have agreed that 2♣ then 3♣ shows this hand. The 45 second delay was unrelated to the hand. Definitely a possibility, if that's what E/W told the director, though even if so the blatant lack of alerts needs instant remedying.

3) Both players are absolute beginners and had no clue what they were doing.

4) East knows that 3♣ is normally strong, but that West might have bid it with a weak hand too. Even if I were East and there were no laws against UI, passing seems terrible due to the fact there's almost certainly a greater chance the hesitation was due to a), and you'll be missing a laydown game / slam.. and even if it were weak, bidding on still has hope.. so I guess this is the same as 3..

2 or 3 seem the most likely to me, compared to anything nefarious going on, but they definitely shouldn't get away with a continued failure to alert, which (again online) is more likely than this being a one-off case.

[steve2005]

Wests actions are just silly.
There is no guarantee 3♣ is better than 1NT as a contract.
They got lucky that East had 4♣.

Not many people have a way to show a weak 5-5 in the minors.

One way is 2NT as a weak 5-5 in minors or a transfer to ♦

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-05, 12:57, said:

Not by WBF or an RA, otherwise I would not be writing here.
Nor was it organized by BBO.
But for payment nevertheless, and with a good number of drum rolls about disclosure and ethics too.
But for payment

What are you paying for? cash prizes or something else

 pescetom, on 2024-April-05, 12:57, said:

and with a good number of drum rolls about disclosure and ethics too.

Yep, turn your phone off please.

[Douglas43]

In defence of the bidding (I wasn't there and now nothing about the participants), I might have risked this opposite a weak NT at pairs IF (deliberately in capitals - hardly anyone still plays this) still playing Stayman followed by 3♣ as an escape. You can pass opener's responses of 2♦ or 2♠. If opener rebids 2♥, the decision to Stayman was probably wrong, but no alternative to following through with 3♣. It's more dubious opposite stronger 1NT.


Don't play under ACBL rules, so won't comment on failures to alert.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-April-05, 17:16, said:

What are you paying for? cash prizes or something else?

For the tournament itself, plus a Director to impose the rules. The fee goes to the organisers, but obviously BBO get their cut.There used to be prizes in BB$, but now they are reallocated on the basis of who won most in the month and so irrelevant to occasional players like me.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-06, 11:32, said:

For the tournament itself, plus a Director to impose the rules. The fee goes to the organisers, but obviously BBO get their cut.There used to be prizes in BB$, but now they are reallocated on the basis of who won most in the month and so irrelevant to occasional players like me.

Ok, if I am paying for a Director, I would expect a game to be run according to the Laws but it comes as no surprise that the games are "anything goes".
Do online games have a seperate set of regulations? I recall something regarding Breaks In Tempo being attributed to poor internet connections,
there is never any UI involved in online games, or perhaps that was just hearsay and lazy directing.