claiming on stepbridge

[Helen]

Dear Director, 
we were playing on line at Stepbridge for green pts.  There is a culture of claiming to speed up the game and lines of play are not explained when claiming as it holds up play and you are likely to get a time penalty.  D claimed all remaining tricks when leading a suit that I had run out of from dummy. The claim was made before Dec had played his card.   Dec held AQxx in 3rd seast and I held Jx in 4th seat.  D had not established that my p was out of trumps.  I declined the claim and then play went on.  D then played the A of trumps.  I called the D as I thought that by claiming and getting my decline the D had extra information that he then used to play the ace.  The D refused to rule, saying that she would refer to another person.  This person also refused to give us a ruling and said that we couldnt insist on either establishing a line of play or getting a ruling as this would take up too much time.
This doesnt seem quite right to me.  Stepbridge is supposed to be a registered club and has tournaments for green and red points.  At our normal club we would at least get a ruling.
Thanks for your time.

[Martin YOUNG]

I only know the name of Stepbridge about two days ago. It is an on line Bridge playing in Australia. I don't really know how it works because I am not interested to play Bridge on line. I am surprised that you can call a Director from the computer. Well, nobody can remember every single clause on the Law book. So the first Director referred your dispute to another Director. Obviously both Directors couldn't remember the clause of Law 68C & D. I had a similar dispute as Helen. If you can read my recent posted subject "Don't Know" then your dispute can be solved, Helen. I am interested to know the "time penalty" and how it works.

[Paul Sherman]

I haven't played online for some years now (and never on Stepbridge) but I would have thought the absolute minimum requirement for an online director would have been a copy of the Laws sitting next to them by the computer.

[Ed Reppert]

Not to mention that the laws are easily available on line.

[Helen]

Yes, we ended up having a conversation with the 'director' at the end of the game when we still had not got a ruling.  His interpretation was that 'of course' the declarer would have played the ace and that there was nothing to rule on.  I thought that Rule 70 would indicate othewise.  Then he said that he didnt have time to make rulings during the game as it would hold everyone up.  I guess my concern is that this is an ABF club and this was a green point event and we are told that we cant uphold the rules because of time constraints.  We also dont seem to have a appeals process. 
Any ideas what we can do?

[Ed Reppert]

Someone who's actually in Australia may have a better idea, but me, I'd vote with my feet. And I'd tell the director/club management why I won't play there.

[Paul Sherman]

Then he said that he didnt have time to make rulings during the game as it would hold everyone up. 

Then why have directors at all? And don't directors hold up games in club duplicates as well, for a few moments while they make their ruling? I've never heard of players complaining about directors holding up any game while they ruled. And what are the alternatives to not getting a ruling from a director in the case of a dispute? Now there's an interesting question.

[Helen]

Thanks everyone, yes I guess the answer is pretty simple - the more I think about it.  The lack of rulings at the table and the obsession with penalties for slow play make stepbridge not quite the real McCoy.  The computer determines who is the slow pair - there is no chance to give an explanation - eg you could be waiting for an explanation of bidding but if it is your turn to bid the clock is running against you.  If you are the 'slow' pair and you dont begin the board with 4:12 on the clock you are penalised 40/60%. 

[bluejak]

Sounds dreadful.

Claims are judgement decisions.  Competent TDs find the position out, take them away, and rule at their leisure.  Even online with time constraints it should be possible to do this.

[StepBridge]

It's a pity non of the repliers has the experience of playing at StepBridge.
May I all invite you to come along to see how it really goes?

The rules are confirm the World Bridge Federation Laws for on line bridge and can be more or less compared with playing with table screens.
Additional rules are explained at the website: follow the link to tournaments.

What the poster forgot to say is that after claiming either opponent can reject BUT it doesn't show who declined it.
A widespread confusion is that opponents assume they can order the declarer how to play the remaining tricks.

In this situation the director was called only after the declarer played the next trick and that seems the correct way for the claim. I was called even later at the table and after consulting the director I didn't see any reason to adjust the result. The poster and her partner didn't agree and insisted a penalty should apply.

Of course it would have been easier if the declarer made his claim after he played the trick and thus letting no confusion about the claim. However that didn't happen but to proof the claim was correct he played the trick (which is similar to an explanation).

Again: different to live bridge you don't know who disputed the claim so there is less information available for the declarer. Don't expect now that the declarer has to play an unlikely way just to lose tricks.

Just like in live bridge, the director usually find the position, let play continue and if one of the pairs is disadvantaged he will make a decision. If players decide to continue arguing it is at own (time) risk.

The other issue raised is that there suppose to be a tremendous time pressure. I really need to deny that. The allocated time for 1 board is 5:15 or 15:45 for a round of 3 boards. Because you don't need to pick, count and sort your cards and count them again before placing them back in the envelope, this is really enough. Usually most of the players finish far before that time.

Now there seems to be a misunderstanding about what happens if of a round of 3 boards there is not enough time (4:12) left for the last board. If players need more than 11:33 to play 2 boards it is very unlikely they suddenly will zoom on the last board. Because you can't move unless all tables are finished this is the only way to prevent other players to wait till the slower ones are finished. That would be penalizing the players who play on time. In this situation the clock was only running against the poster because the arguing continued.

There are also no penalties if the last board is missed but there is an artificial score: the time used by either pair is calculated and the less slower pair gets an artificial score of 60% and the other of 40%.

Paul Sherman: StepBridge has directors because we don't want wild-west situations. Rulings often don't need to be made at the spot and most of the live bridge laws don't apply on line: like you can't bid out of turn, you can't underbid, you can't revoke, etc. The book is handy but in 80% of the cases not needed.

[Paul Sherman]

Paul Sherman: StepBridge has directors because we don't want wild-west situations. Rulings often don't need to be made at the spot and most of the live bridge laws don't apply on line: like you can't bid out of turn, you can't underbid, you can't revoke, etc. The book is handy but in 80% of the cases not needed.

Dear Unknown, point taken, no bids out of turn, no insufficient bids, no revokes because the program will not allow them. As you say, about 80% of the regular problems cannot happen on Stepbridge, indeed on any online bridge. That emphasises the point that the paltry 20% left should be ably handled by an online director in quick time, surely. It's the least the players would expect.

[bluejak]

Experience from other online providers suggest that to balance the lack of leads out of turn and so forth, generally MI, UI and claims are handled far worse online.  There are a number of reasons for this, but it is one reason why when I play it does not feel like bridge.

It seems to me that online bridge can go in two ways.  Either it is a fun event, like playing kitchen bridge without worrying too much about the rules.  Or the organisers are going to have to make a very serious attempt to make up for the serious disadvantages in applying the rules, and try very hard to achieve a level of tournament direction comparable with face-to-face bridge.  Most online bridge seems to me to belong to the former type.

[Paul Sherman]

I agree with your comments, David but the clincher here is the green points. Now master points may not be the be-all or end-all of everything but once you start issuing mp-s you are under the auspices of the ACBL, the ABF, the NZBF or some such organisation and as such are bound by the regulations of that authority. You cannot play kitchen bridge AND issue mp-s so it appears they are striving for the latter. Whether they are doing a good job of it- the jury is out on that one.

[StepBridge]

It may not come as a surprise that the Law is the Law, at least that is at StepBridge.
Every tournament session is played according to the WBF rules for online bridge without any exceptions.
The biggest difference with live bridge is that the bidder needs to alert and explain his own bids at all levels to his opponents; this stays hidden for his partner.
But this is all besides the issue.

In this case the declarer claimed the remaining 10 tricks and almost simultaneously with the decline played a card to confirm the line of play. That is the fastest way to explain and a accepted procedure in online bridge. [Typing: "I ruff high, draw trumps and the rest is good" will take far more time.]
The ruling was given during the session and the opponents were pointed at the possibility to appeal.

[Ed Reppert]

Placing one's cards on the table to demonstrate a line of play is a good way to do that, online or off, but it is not "playing" the cards, as play ceased when the claim was made.

The ruling was given during the session and the opponents were pointed at the possibility to appeal.

That's quite a different scenario than was in the original post.