Appeal 2

[MFA]

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=st5hq843dak52cj85]133|100|Scoring: MP

Pass-2♠-pass-pass[/hv]

 

E-W play a very unusual style for their 2♠ openings. 7-11 hcp, exactly 5 spades, could be any distribution and just about any suit quality!

 

Double or pass, how do you judge this?

 

----------------------------

 

 

----------------------------

 

As it was, East had a clear huddle when it was his turn. 20-25 sec or so (North took his normal 10 sec).

South judged that a reopening double was very marginal, and when East apparently had something, it seemed wiser to pass out 2♠.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj6hak7dt986cq963&w=sk9873hj92dq4ca42&e=saq42ht65dj73ckt7&s=st5hq843dak52cj85]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

South felt decieved by East's huddle. East explained he considered bidding 3♠ preemptive (which systemically could be raised by opener with a strong 5-5 for instance).

 

Should the score stand or be corrected? Strong players.

[TylerE]

Don't the laws clearly state that any inferences a player chooses to draw from the opponents tempo or mannerism is solely at their own risk?

[TimG]

73D1 It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady

tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly

careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise,

unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is

made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may

appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

[peachy]

Don't the laws clearly state that any inferences a player chooses to draw from the opponents tempo or mannerism is solely at their own risk?

Yes. They also say one should be careful when the hesitation could benefit one's own side; see TimG's quote of the relevant law.

Let's say the bidding goes 1S(P)2S(P) and now opener takes a long time and then passes with a rock bottom minimum 6-3-3-2 hand. Opener could have known [i'd go as far as "should have known"] that this hesitation might prevent opponent from balancing. It is not legal to break tempo in this situation with that hand because there is no bridge reason to do so and it could obviously work to my benefit.

[Finch]

I would allow the score to stand.

East had a perfectly good bridge reason to think

South chose to pass out an obvious protective double love all at matchpoints.

[jeremy69]

When a player holds a flat 0 count and his partner opens a weak NT and he then thinks for some time before passing and argues that he was deciding whther to remove or not he will get little sympathy because precisely as noted above he could have known this would work to his benefit.

I think that similarly here East knew that when he was thinking with such good spade support it could work to his advantage. I can't quite work out why he didn't bid 3S anyway.

[campboy]

There are two relevant laws here: 73D1, which has been posted, and 73F.

When a violation of the proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonsrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

 

As Frances says, there was a demonstrable bridge reason and this is enough to allow the score to stand, though Law 73D1 justifies warning East to be more careful.

[MFA]

There are two relevant laws here: 73D1, which has been posted, and 73F.

When a violation of the proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonsrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

 

As Frances says, there was a demonstrable bridge reason and this is enough to allow the score to stand, though Law 73D1 justifies warning East to be more careful.

Hi, just to test your point.

 

Can it really be right to judge that there was a sufficient bridge reason to think and then at the same time issue a warning from the TD (or AC) to the player to be more careful next time? Why is that not contradicting?

[blackshoe]

It's not contradicting because the player may not be aware of the legal ramifications. The warning is simply that while in this case he has not transgressed, he needs to be aware that he might in a different but similar situation in future.

[bluejak]

Don't the laws clearly state that any inferences a player chooses to draw from the opponents tempo or mannerism is solely at their own risk?

No. Not solely.

 

The point is that a player is required to be careful in tempo-sensitive positions. Assuming he has been, then inferences by his opponent are at his own risk.

[TimG]

Case 8 from the Orlando 1998 Casebook involves a discussion of this Law.

[lamford]

East had a perfectly good bridge reason to think.

Indeed he only needed to find Kxxxx xx x AQxxx for game to be very good; he would have needed to weigh up the chance of going off at the three-level, and had a normal choice between Pass, 2NT and 3S.

 

South concluded that East had something; he was correct - but with East's 4-3-3-3 shape it is no surprise that total tricks are low, and the three-level can indeed be taken for the deadly -300.