[lamford]

---

Table result 2♣+3 Lead Q♠

“There are things that once done can’t be undone, things that once said can’t be unsaid.” ― Lisa Gardner

This was an actual hand from the North London club some weeks back. South asked for an undo, having intended to click on 3♣ and OO arrived. "Unfortunately, the North London committee voted not to allow Undos in their pairs game", he started, "I opposed this, but my comments were like water off a duck's back". "So I cannot accede to your request. It is actually disabled", he continued. North was ChCh, and decided that 2♣ would be the limit for RR and passed it out, for a well-above average board, as 3NT had failed on several occasions.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!" bellowed SB, West. OO returned. "North used the UI of South's request for an undo and the UI that South wished to change his call to the intended 3♣".

"Hmm ..." replied OO, leafing through the Law Book, although he knew it almost as well as SB. "I don't think it is UI", he responded. "16A1 states, regarding authorised information: ( c ) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations ..."

He further went on. "The fact that South intended to bid 3C was arising from
25 A. Unintended Call
1. If a player discovers that he has not made the call he intended to make, he may, until his partner makes a call, substitute the call he intended for the unintended call. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law, but the lead restrictions in Law 26 do not apply."

I don't think this game is being conducted in accordance with the Laws of Bridge, and I will draw this to the attention of the committee. Meanwhile I rule ...

How do you rule?

[Gilithin]

Since this is an online tournament, there is no reason for ChCh to have been privy to the private messages passed between RR and the TD. SO how exactly did he obtain the information that a 3♣ opening was intended. If there is some off-platform communication taking place between the partners, this would obviously be a grave matter indeed and I know just the Norwegian to look into it and pass judgement.

[pilowsky]

PMarlowe said:

...and there was Rusty, at the bottom of the well. Sleeping the big sleep.

Grave indeed.

[sanst]

I’m quite interested to know how this club organises the game. Bellowing and leafing through the law book is typical for the physical game, misclicks can AFAIK only happen online. Are the playing sitting at the same table with a screen in front of them, playing online?

[lamford]

Gilithin, on 2021-November-13, 19:57, said:

Since this is an online tournament, there is no reason for ChCh to have been privy to the private messages passed between RR and the TD. SO how exactly did he obtain the information that a 3♣ opening was intended. If there is some off-platform communication taking place between the partners, this would obviously be a grave matter indeed and I know just the Norwegian to look into it and pass judgement.

The TD asked the table what the problem was, and RR replied to the table that he intended to open 3C but misclicked. The TD has to ask the table at the start as he does not know who called him! Perhaps he should ask "who called?" first, but everyone is entitled to the TD's question and RR's answer. That is authorised. RR had to announce to the table that he had misclicked, or he would not have been able to change his call UNTIL HIS PARTNER HAS MADE A CALL.

In any case it could be argued that there was director error in that he did not allow RR to change his call to 3C. The fact that he could not because the Organising Body and software did not allow it is neither here nor there, as it was also announced that the event was being played in accordance with the Laws of Bridge.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2021-November-14, 03:01, said:

I’m quite interested to know how this club organises the game. Bellowing and leafing through the law book is typical for the physical game, misclicks can AFAIK only happen online. Are the playing sitting at the same table with a screen in front of them, playing online?

It is a hybrid event with both online and F2F. The joint TD is at the latter, but even if he weren't he would still leaf through the Law Book in his own sitting room. SB 'bellows' online by adding a few extra "O"s in DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR or a few extra presses of the CALL DIRECTOR button. RR plays only online because of his fear of the new Corona Myxamatosis strain.

[lamford]

pilowsky, on 2021-November-13, 22:54, said:

Grave indeed.

Reminds me of someone commenting that BBO having "autoplay singletons" on was illegal communication. "Knowing that your partner has a stiff is of grave concern."

[mycroft]

So, Director error, unless someone hasn't learned how to respond in private after this long. Yes, there's a UI case, but not from the "want to undo - no undos". Could have been a "meant to bid 1NT", could have even been a misclick "meant to bid 1♠". Could have been "meant to bid 2♣", too, but possibly even the rabbit would rebid 3NT instead of something "forcing" partner could pass.

"Who called, please?" (well, online, the TD already knows who called)
>Director OO has arrived at the table
"How can I help?" *in private*, response *in private*.

The Chimp knows partner misbid somehow, doesn't know if it's 25A not allowed by game setup or 25B not allowed by TD, or anything else.

Oh he knows exactly why? Because of table talk? Sure - but post *that* problem, not what the OP implies.

UI case - nothing to do with "no undos", nothing to do with online, either just bad process or bad following of process.

Of course, tomorrow the exact same thing happens, but South has T6 -- J54 QJ987653.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2021-November-14, 10:38, said:

So, Director error, unless someone hasn't learned how to respond in private after this long.

No, director error in not allowing South to change his call to 3C, as allowed by 25A. Wasn't able to do that? Tough. Still director error. OO should instruct the auction to go 1C-Pass-1D-Pass-3C and he has got round the problem. He then announces that the 1C-Pass-1D-Pass part of that is all authorised as being meaningless to all four players.

[Gilithin]

lamford, on 2021-November-14, 05:13, said:

The TD asked the table what the problem was, and RR replied to the table that he intended to open 3C but misclicked. The TD has to ask the table at the start as he does not know who called him! Perhaps he should ask "who called?" first, but everyone is entitled to the TD's question and RR's answer. That is authorised. RR had to announce to the table that he had misclicked, or he would not have been able to change his call UNTIL HIS PARTNER HAS MADE A CALL.

In any case it could be argued that there was director error in that he did not allow RR to change his call to 3C. The fact that he could not because the Organising Body and software did not allow it is neither here nor there, as it was also announced that the event was being played in accordance with the Laws of Bridge.

Which software were they using then? On BBO the TD gets informed who has called them to the best of my knowledge. They then usually ask the player privately what the issue is and take it from there. A "no undo" tournament is essentially the same as the TD ruling that there was no mistaken call and it was in fact a change of mind, due to the propensity of some players to use undos for rethinks rather than actual misclicks. Rulings would presumably then follow from that basis.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2021-November-14, 14:40, said:

Which software were they using then? On BBO the TD gets informed who has called them to the best of my knowledge. They then usually ask the player privately what the issue is and take it from there. A "no undo" tournament is essentially the same as the TD ruling that there was no mistaken call and it was in fact a change of mind, due to the propensity of some players to use undos for rethinks rather than actual misclicks. Rulings would presumably then follow from that basis.

I imagine they were using RealBridge. But IIRC that does inform TD which player made the call - and certainly it allows TD to set up private chat with selected player(s).

I think your explanation of the reasoning behind "no undo" is a little harsh, there is also the element that online systems offer a setting to confirm choice of call and this effectively eliminates the "mechanical" excuse.

lamford, on 2021-November-14, 13:32, said:

No, director error in not allowing South to change his call to 3C, as allowed by 25A. Wasn't able to do that? Tough. Still director error. OO should instruct the auction to go 1C-Pass-1D-Pass-3C and he has got round the problem. He then announces that the 1C-Pass-1D-Pass part of that is all authorised as being meaningless to all four players.

If it was RealBridge, Director was able to do that (undo the auction to allow change of call, assuming he was willing to do so in the first place). But they already saw that auction so it would still be "authorised as being meaningless", which seems more appropriate to the Cop26 deal than to bridge.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2021-November-14, 15:52, said:

I imagine they were using RealBridge. But IIRC that does inform TD which player made the call - and certainly it allows TD to set up private chat with selected player(s).

I think your explanation of the reasoning behind "no undo" is a little harsh, there is also the element that online systems offer a setting to confirm choice of call and this effectively eliminates the "mechanical" excuse.


If it was RealBridge, Director was able to do that (undo the auction to allow change of call, assuming he was willing to do so in the first place). But they already saw that auction so it would still be "authorised as being meaningless", which seems more appropriate to the Cop26 deal than to bridge.

No, they were using BBO. The TD would know who called him but that need not have been the player who misclicked. It would usually be the Secretary Bird, of course who loves that "Call Director" button. All TD calls I know at our club have started with "How can I help you?" to the table when the TD arrives. RR then said "I meant to click on 3C but misclicked on 1C".

OO did NOT decide it was a change of mind. I suggest that Gilthin reads the OP again, or he can start an alternative thread with a different scenario if he wishes. It was stated: "South asked for an undo, having intended to click on 3♣". This was not disputed by anyone. So the TD was in error in not allowing a Law 25A change. Director error. Pure and simple.

Now if South had misclicked on 7C instead of 3C, there would be no way of untangling it. That would be a board which could not be played through no fault of the players and scored Ave+ Ave+. Come to think of it, I have just thought of a good way of getting 60% in a pairs event without playing a card on BBO. And all I need is 24 misclicks.

[blackshoe]

Gilithin, on 2021-November-14, 14:40, said:

Which software were they using then? On BBO the TD gets informed who has called them to the best of my knowledge. They then usually ask the player privately what the issue is and take it from there. A "no undo" tournament is essentially the same as the TD ruling that there was no mistaken call and it was in fact a change of mind, due to the propensity of some players to use undos for rethinks rather than actual misclicks. Rulings would presumably then follow from that basis.

That's not consistent with Law 25A and is therefore not legal.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2021-November-15, 09:53, said:

That's not consistent with Law 25A and is therefore not legal.

Several aspects of online play are not consistent with the current (f2f oriented) laws, some necessarily and some not (this is somewhere in the middle, I would argue).
This unhappy situation will only improve if and when we have laws thoughtfully rewritten for online (and 25A might change in a thoughtful rewrite for f2f, come to that).

[mycroft]

True, but it happens anyway. It's even an authorized decision by the EBU (see 4.3.2 in the SkyBlue book). Which seems to be the (cleverly hidden) issue being raised.

A director that didn't follow the regulations of the game they are directing (potentially illegal though they may be) is a bad director.
A director that breaks a whole bunch of laws and regulations to "fake" a situation that "should have been" allowed is a bad director.
A director that doesn't control the table such that the relevant information doesn't come out could be a better director.

But under the regulations provided, it's a simple UI case. Exactly the same as if it had gone 1♣-p-1♦ "Sorry, I meant to open 3♣. Director!".

I laud Lamford's decision to, outside this thread, petition the EBU to change/remove 4.3.2 SkyBlue as a regulation made contrary to L80B. But until that happens, one's choice is to follow the regulations in force, or not play or direct those games.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2021-November-14, 16:47, said:

No, they were using BBO. The TD would know who called him but that need not have been the player who misclicked. It would usually be the Secretary Bird, of course who loves that "Call Director" button. All TD calls I know at our club have started with "How can I help you?" to the table when the TD arrives.

I confess that I have always started with chat to table as TD on BBO. But recently I've been playing in some tournaments where the TD will start with private chat to whoever made the call, and it seems to work out well for typical calls about explanations or tempo - occasionally TD will have to bounce back and forwards with "your opponent says", which is inelegant but no real problem.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2021-November-15, 10:33, said:

I laud Lamford's decision to, outside this thread, petition the EBU to change/remove 4.3.2 SkyBlue as a regulation made contrary to L80B. But until that happens, one's choice is to follow the regulations in force, or not play or direct those games.

The regulations in force are that the game is played in accordance with the Laws of Bridge. Including 25A. So I will insist that the TD follows them. If the board cannot be played for reasons outside the TD's control then it is scored as Ave+ Ave+ treating both sides as non-offending.

[mycroft]

It's your choice. You can follow the regulations of the game you signed up for, you can get the regulations changed, or you can not play in those games. There certainly are other games to play, including online on BBO under the aegis of the EBU, where 4.3.2 SkyBlue is not in force. Or you can play in the ACBL's tournaments (note, I don't guarantee what happens in the BBO ACBL club, but I do know how 25A is implemented in online tournaments). That has its own issues with regulations "contrary to [some readings of] the Laws of Bridge", but it's an option.

Insisting on inventing a solution at the table (at least this one doesn't immediately violate several of the other Laws) will almost certainly determine which of those three you will have chosen.

It might also influence your ability to succeed in another of those choices. Which, to me, would be a net negative.

As I said, I laud the choice you have taken, even if pragmatically it is likely doomed to failure.

[mycroft]

Please note: I wish I wasn't this cynical, and I wish I was proven wrong more often.

But I do know that there are lots of little things that could be better, and there's a limited amount of time and attention available. And the people who put in the time to do the politics somehow see their "little things" as being less little than others' "little things", so I know what gets done. And bridge is full of rich entitled people who have never been called on their desire, and therefore act as if their will will be done unquestioningly by "the little people". And, to give them credit, often it works. But equally often, it just makes their lives harder. And sometimes they hit a wall of an equally entitled, but more connected (or richer - there's doctors and accountants, and then there are people who buy wineries on their weeks off, or who can lose 8 digits and laugh) person and bounce hard.

And I am reminded that the character I've named myself after, and who sometimes pops up in these threads, is known for following the rules exactly, almost always to his own detriment - in situations where "doing the right thing, even though it's not the Absolutely Correct thing, would have worked better for you, neh?" Mollo as well might be a little cynical...

But I would a better world anyway.

[weejonnie]

One of the conundrums is that there is always going to be the chance that partner will respond before you have the chance to declare a misclick. (Playing against a robot and someone who has an obvious call you may have only a couple of seconds - even less if you are playing with a robot as well.)

The laws of bridge (2017) do not envisage speed-of-light bidding sequences nor do bridge platforms, at least on BBO, do they limit UNDOs (when enabled). So I would definitely agree that the players are not playing bridge as we understand it on a f2f basis.

I have had similar situations crop up on the daily EBU events on BBO (where UNDOs aren't allowed). Normally I will chat directly to the player involved and simply explain that UNDOS aren't allowed and then, if the player has advised the table that they have misclicked, that said information is UI for partner. I would like it if UNDOS could be allowed by overriding as Director, but that, unfortunately is not, at present, an option. (I also advise players to select "confirm calls" and "confirm plays" on their settings to try and avoid it happening again). I have no power (legally) to amend the result if a player gets a bad score as all players know the consequences of misclicking on the CoC - although of course I can change the final result to anything. If a player DOES get a good score because their partner uses the UI then I think I can still adjust.

(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)