Law 73 F and D

[OleBerg]

Constructed example, based on a real hand.

 

Please treat all information as fact all participants have agreed on.

 

At all white, MP's, the bidding goes.

 

 

North  East  South  West

 

Pass - 2♠ - Pass - Pass*

Pass

 

* Significant huddle, at least 15 seconds.

 

 

2♠ showed 7-11, five spades.

 

South held the mandatory 10 second break after two spades, and West huddled for another 15 seconds.

 

North calls the director, and claims to have been mislead by the pause. He would have doubled, which would have yielded a better result. North has a hand that would fit a rough double.

 

Upon inquiry east reveals he considered bidding 3♠ (competitive, non-invitational).

 

When the hand is polled among a group of the same class of players as West, answers are split betweem two groups of equal size. One group would have passed, the other bid 3♠. (Under the same agreements.)

 

Does Law 73F Apply:

 

F. Violation of properties.

 

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 demonstrable 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).

* i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

 

If not, how about law 73D1:

 

D. Variations in tempo and manner.

 

1. 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.

 

Adjustment?

[Blue Uriah]

Sounds like West had a genuine reason to think and so has done nothing wrong.

 

North took a view that the huddle showed strength, but he was wrong. That's no reason to adjust the score.

[Cyberyeti]

73F clearly does not apply.

 

73D1 I don't really understand. The break in tempo clearly is beneficial to his side, but the law then says effectively caveat emptor on using the opponent's hesitation, so the law seems to draw its own teeth.

 

Is it legitimate to ask the question "What could he be thinking about that doesn't involve a good hand ?" and do you need to do this to protect yourself.

[gordontd]

I think West has failed to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."

 

The trouble with thinking about making a pre-emptive raise but then passing is that you are getting much of the advantage from raising (making it harder for the opponents to compete) without taking the required risk.

 

I think there would be a case for adjustment.

[gordontd]

73D1 I don't really understand. The break in tempo clearly is beneficial to his side, but the law then says effectively caveat emptor on using the opponent's hesitation, so the law seems to draw its own teeth.

I think "otherwise" is the significant word here - ie if it's not a situation when variations may work to the benefit of their side, then unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction.

[bluejak]

It is simple enough - in theory. If you are in a tempo sensitive position then you may break tempo with an adequate reason. Assuming you have an adequate reason then the fact that an opponent misguesses that reason is just tough luck. But if you have no adequate reason an adjustment may be expected.

 

Like the UI Laws, the Law is simple enough, the judgement on a specific hand may not be. Here, where half the people polled bid 3♠, half pass, I think there is a reasonable reason to pause. But I can see it not being a unanimous view! :ph34r:

[jdaming]

I think the passing player is trying to offload all responsibility here. If directors routinely rule in favor of the "damaged" side here he has absolutely no reason to double and in case it works out badly he can just scream foul. I would be curious to see how many of the passout bidders peers would have doubled had no tempo break occurred, although I don't think this would affect my decision.

 

If the player was thinking just to interfere (ie none of the players polled would have raised) then you have redress but this seems like a case of one player believing the opponents a little to much and getting burnt.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, good reasoning to come to good ruling --no adjustment. FWIW, the long pause -- to me as next to act would simply mean that RHO thought and chose. If he thinks his choice is right, who am I to think it isn't? Hence I don't want to live with his choice, and would act rather than let the opps play it there, with priority to a double, it case the problem was a misfit.

 

Passing it out, then claiming damage seems like a two bites of the apple thing. oops, while typing this up --djaming said it better, so just look at his.

[nigel_k]

I think West has failed to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."

 

The trouble with thinking about making a pre-emptive raise but then passing is that you are getting much of the advantage from raising (making it harder for the opponents to compete) without taking the required risk.

 

I think there would be a case for adjustment.

It is unfortunate if the slow pass had some of the same benefits of raising without the risk but I agree with the others that there should be no adjustment, The polling shows there is a demonstrable bridge reason for considering whether to pass or bid 3♠ so the requirements of 73F cannot be met.

[OleBerg]

I think West has failed to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."

 

The trouble with thinking about making a pre-emptive raise but then passing is that you are getting much of the advantage from raising (making it harder for the opponents to compete) without taking the required risk.

 

I think there would be a case for adjustment.

It is unfortunate if the slow pass had some of the same benefits of raising without the risk but I agree with the others that there should be no adjustment, The polling shows there is a demonstrable bridge reason for considering whether to pass or bid 3♠ so the requirements of 73F cannot be met.

But what about 73D?

[nigel_k]

It is unfortunate if the slow pass had some of the same benefits of raising without the risk but I agree with the others that there should be no adjustment, The polling shows there is a demonstrable bridge reason for considering whether to pass or bid 3♠ so the requirements of 73F cannot be met.

But what about 73D?

IMO it cannot be covered under 73D2 as an 'attempt to mislead an opponent' is not supported by the facts and the 'could have known' language is not in there.

 

As for 73D1, I'm not entirely sure what it means or even if there is any rule at all being described there. The words 'should be particularly careful' are vague about what is really required of the player. I could be wrong but I would have difficulty ever finding an infraction based on 73D1 alone.

 

Anyway my understanding of 73F is that an opponent who draws a wrong inference from a BIT needs to establish the requirements of 73F in order to get an adjustment even if there is a breach of proprieties according to one of the other sections.

 

I suppose you could fall back on 12A1 when 73F fails but I would not do that when 73F seems intended to handle this specific situation.

[bluejak]

You have to find an infraction of Law which has no rectification before you can apply Law 12A1. Either Law 73D has been breached and Law 73F covers it, or there seems no infraction to me.

 

The words 'should be particularly careful' are vague about what is really required of the player.

This surprises me. Not only is the sentence one of the most important in the whole of Law 73, but it seems perfectly clear. In what way is it not?

[nigel_k]

73F appears to have six elements:

 

1. A violation of the proprieties described in law 73

2. Damage to an innocent player

3. The opponent took an action other than a call or play (eg a BIT)

4. The innocent player drew a false inference from this action

5. There was no demonstrable bridge reason for the action

6. The opponent could have known that the action would work to his benefit

 

If all of these are present the director adjusts the score. Elements 2 through 6 are fine and I think would be ok as necessary and sufficient conditions for an adjustment without element 1.

 

The problem is that 73F requires element 1 in addition. If there is no 'attempt to mislead' under 73D2 then the only way to satisfy element 1 is through 73D1. So the question is what constitutes, under 73D1, a violation of proprieties?

 

Let me quote the full text of 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."

 

Parsing the second and third sentences I think we get three scenarios:

1. An intentional variation in tempo is an infraction

2. An unintentional variation in tempo without being 'particularly careful' is an infraction

3. An unintentional variation in tempo while being 'particularly careful' is not an infraction

 

Every BIT is in some sense intentional so I'm going to assume the word 'unintentionally' in the third sentence refers to all situations where there is no intent to mislead, to distinguish this from 73D2.

 

Therefore the 'violation of proprieties' required in order to rule under 73F will exist if and only if the BIT player was not 'particularly careful'. Now it would be tempting to argue that a hesitation cannot be 'particularly careful' when there is no demonstrable bridge reason for doing so. The problem with this is it makes 73D1 redundant as a law along with the first part of 73F. An adjustment will always be in order when elements 2 through 6 of 73F are met.

 

Sorry if this seems a bit pedantic but I think it's good to start by assuming that all the words in the laws are there for a reason.