Dichotomy for orderings?

The class $NP$ can be defined by the means of Monadic Second-Order logic going back to Fagin and Feder-Vardi, and also by forbidden expanded substructures (cf. lifts and shadows of Kun and Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il). Consequently, for such problems there is no dichotomy, unlike for $CSP$'s. We prove that ordering problems for graphs defined by finitely many forbidden ordered subgraphs still capture the class $NP$. In particular, we refute a conjecture of Hell, Mohar and Rafiey that dichotomy holds for this class. On the positive side, we confirm the conjecture of Duffus, Ginn and R\"odl that ordering problems defined by one single biconnected ordered graph are $NP$-complete but for the ordered complete graph. An interesting feature appeared and was noticed several times. For finite sets of biconnected patterns (which may be colored structures or ordered structures) complexity dichotomy holds. A principal tool for obtaining this result is known as the Sparse Incomparability Lemma, a classical result in the theory of homomorphisms of graphs and structures. We prove it here in the setting of ordered graphs as a Temporal Sparse Incomparability Lemma for orderings. Interestingly, our proof involves the Lov\'asz Local Lemma.