[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-April-06, 18:11, said:

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.

No online regulations from WBF yet. Most RAs had a minimal stab at it during the lockdowns. The EBU gave internet connection excuses full rope, FIGB left that decision up to TD (and my own policy was firmly that players are held responsible for remaining connected). Nobody got round to regulating the platform and its capabilities, in particular to conceal and manage tempo (although ACBL has distinguished itself by adopting tempo management in its own top level competitions).

[jillybean]

Thank you, good to know.

[pescetom]

Thanks to those who contributed here, both in terms of bona fide interpretation of EW bidding and in terms of how the Laws should apply.

Thanks also for other discussion, but just to clarify, I don't think there was any issue here with regulations (it was clear that 2C should be alerted and 3C should at least be explained on request) or with internet (no visible loss of connection by West, nor did anyone suggest that connection was lost). In cases of long delay I normally assume that opponent is off to the bathroom or looking for a cold beer, but there are established ways of handling that in chat.

There are some issues with the platform, although clearly not the root cause. It could and should have been hidden from East that his partner was wholly responsible for the 45s delay (but he could have guessed anyway). The 'Explain' mechanism as implemented is notoriously confusing and this might just account for failure to explain 3C after explaining 2C (but not for the slow and evasive explanation of 2C). It should not have been necessary to call the TD when an explanation request received no response (but the explanation mechanism is so poor that a TD could be forgiven for ignoring the warning).

[mycroft]

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

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 am reminded (by hrothgar, from re-reading other threads) that with the changes to L73, this isn't as cut-and-dried as before. I mean, in my opinion the intention of the Law has not changed (just Clarified, with a capital C) - deliberately causing information to be passed is wrong, playing bridge causing information to be passed extra to calls and plays is not, but is still UI to partner. Not sure if any of this is relevant to this case, but it is a change.

I do find the diff of L73 interesting (in particular, the, I assume intentional, keeping of the gender-specific wording rather than using the gender neutral constructions in the approved WBF "translation". However, that seems "interesting" as in "it's not an issue for *us*" rather than a deliberate slight).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-April-21, 19:49, said:

I am reminded (by hrothgar, from re-reading other threads) that with the changes to L73, this isn't as cut-and-dried as before. I mean, in my opinion the intention of the Law has not changed (just Clarified, with a capital C) - deliberately causing information to be passed is wrong, playing bridge causing information to be passed extra to calls and plays is not, but is still UI to partner. Not sure if any of this is relevant to this case, but it is a change.

I do find the diff of L73 interesting (in particular, the, I assume intentional, keeping of the gender-specific wording rather than using the gender neutral constructions in the approved WBF "translation". However, that seems "interesting" as in "it's not an issue for *us*" rather than a deliberate slight).

I was involved in translation to Italian of the revised L73, which was delicate both because Italian has a more limited vocabulary ("Reprehensible" has no literal equivalent, curiously enough, even though the verb and the negation exist) and any divergence from the previous 2017 translation would make waves. Funnily enough, the previous translation was already gender neutral as I recall (so long as you accept the original sin of conjugating "Player" and "Partner" in Male rather than Female) and some of the "to him" constructions are superfluous even in the English original anyway.