[Gilithin]

weejonnie, on 2021-November-19, 06:11, said:

(I would not award any pair an AV+ if the board became unplayable due to their misclick. I would award AV- as the player involved is "directly at fault" for the problem)

The problem somes less often from the misclick or "misclick" itself and more often from the player announcing to the table something that they should not. In this respect, I think "directly at fault" is more than obvious.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2021-November-17, 22:35, said:

It's your choice. You can follow the regulations of the game you signed up for ... <snip>

That is indeed my choice. It states that the game is played in accordance with the Laws of Bridge. It does not say, "except Law 25A does not apply". If the TD is unable to allow a 25A correction AFTER he has established that it applies, then the board cannot be played and is scored Ave+ Ave+.

[lamford]

Gilithin, on 2021-November-19, 07:12, said:

The problem somes less often from the misclick or "misclick" itself and more often from the player announcing to the table something that they should not. In this respect, I think "directly at fault" is more than obvious.

Not so. South may, indeed must, attempt to change his inadvertent call of 1C to 3C. The RA is "directly at fault", not the player.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2021-November-19, 06:11, said:

If the player has advised the table that they have misclicked, that said information is UI for partner.

I disagree. The attempt to make a Law 25A correction is AI to the other three at the table. It arises from the lawful procedures in the Laws.

[Gilithin]

lamford, on 2021-November-21, 12:11, said:

I disagree. The attempt to make a Law 25A correction is AI to the other three at the table. It arises from the lawful procedures in the Laws.

Are you suggesting that if a player stated to the table: "Sorry, I wasn't concentrating, I meant to bid 3♣" that this would not be UI? In a no-undo tournament, these things are more or less relatable.

[lamford]

Gilithin, on 2021-November-21, 13:08, said:

Are you suggesting that if a player stated to the table: "Sorry, I wasn't concentrating, I meant to bid 3♣" that this would not be UI? In a no-undo tournament, these things are more or less relatable.

If he said "I wasn't concentrating" you would be right. If he said, "I misclicked; I am not as nimble since this damned Parkinson's got worse. I intended to click on 3♣", then you would be wrong. It is up to the TD to decide if he is entitled to a Law 25A substitution. And the TD cannot deny him that right on the grounds that undos are not enabled.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2021-November-21, 13:27, said:

If he said "I wasn't concentrating" you would be right. If he said, "I misclicked; I am not as nimble since this damned Parkinson's got worse. I intended to click on 3♣", then you would be wrong. It is up to the TD to decide if he is entitled to a Law 25A substitution. And the TD cannot deny him that right on the grounds that undos are not enabled.

And there's also the online only version "I did click 3♣ but the lag meant it thought I clicked 1♣" I've had this happen to me (but only out by one level).

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2021-November-21, 12:04, said:

That is indeed my choice. It states that the game is played in accordance with the Laws of Bridge. It does not say, "except Law 25A does not apply". If the TD is unable to allow a 25A correction AFTER he has established that it applies, then the board cannot be played and is scored Ave+ Ave+.

Assuming we're talking about the same games (EBU online speedballs), show me where it says that. As opposed to "4.3.2 applies, and we in the EBU believe this is a legal regulation, even if it doesn't mesh perfectly with L25A - exactly the same way our screen regulations "violate" L27 (and L54, and...), when playing with screens."

They may be wrong. You clearly believe they are wrong. But it's the regulation you signed up to play under.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2021-November-21, 21:06, said:

Assuming we're talking about the same games (EBU online speedballs), show me where it says that. As opposed to "4.3.2 applies, and we in the EBU believe this is a legal regulation, even if it doesn't mesh perfectly with L25A - exactly the same way our screen regulations "violate" L27 (and L54, and...), when playing with screens."

They may be wrong. You clearly believe they are wrong. But it's the regulation you signed up to play under.

I can accept that speedballs are different. They allow much less time per hand. I don't regard those as bridge and indeed our Christmas Party has some rules such as (on different boards, depicted by a slip):
a) The final contract will be doubled and redoubled
b) No call can be made at the same level as the previous call.
c) Dummy plays its own cards.
d) Each player gets one call.

What I refer to is the regular, non speedball, North London Club game which does specify that the game is played in accordance with the Laws of Bridge (in the Constitution if nowhere else). It flagrantly breached this at a Xmas party. We are voting at our next Committee Meeting whether to reinstall undos.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-November-21, 16:08, said:

And there's also the online only version "I did click 3♣ but the lag meant it thought I clicked 1♣" I've had this happen to me (but only out by one level).

Yes, I have my doubts whether the retained record of the bidding and play on BBO is always correct as well.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2021-November-22, 06:34, said:

We are voting at our next Committee Meeting whether to reinstall undos.

Why stop there?
The Laws foresee calls and plays out of turn plus revokes, the committee could petition BBO to enable proper bridge.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2021-November-22, 08:37, said:

Why stop there?
The Laws foresee calls and plays out of turn plus revokes, the committee could petition BBO to enable proper bridge.

There is no problem in not allowing calls out of turn or revokes. Why not give a PP to someone for not shuffling tbeir cards and returning them to the wallet?

[mycroft]

That is very different, because it may not have said protection. It would be interesting to see what NLC's justification is. I agree it is important that the game be played to the regulations in force, and if they are not correct, to have them fixed.

As I said, I applaud your efforts. My personal opinion of the damage caused by what actually happened over what would have happened with undos, especially given what could have happened had all players and director understood "don't chat to table what you wouldn't blurt out at the table IRL", is a different question, one answered above. That isn't a "you haven't learned this in 700 days, I don't care if you're damaged" statement - I do care. It's a "if you haven't figured out how to private chat after two years, you get to live with the consequences. There are a lot of people who haven't learned this yet." Am I arguing from a privileged position (twenty years younger than most of the "non-learners", my first "hands on keyboard" computer was in 1976, I've learned how to use terrible UI (much more terrible than BBO) *so many times* before)? Oh hell yes. And I feel bad about it. Just not that bad.

But all that is independent of "if the rules are wrong, we should ensure they aren't." I'm not going to back down from "three lefts do", though.