Law 73

[aguahombre]

playing the card, and leaving it face up, should freeze things and allow you to think before declarer plays his next card --thereby preventing a break in tempo at that point as well.

[pran]

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton?

Presumably he was thinking about something else.

 

Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause.

 

I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result.

Of course it mentions it, because usually it is clearly deceptive. But that does not mean you adjust when it is not. Law 73F does not require an adjustment when there is no reason to be misled. Just because they give an obvious example does not mean you apply it when the Law does not apply.

 

It is not a question of leniency: if Law 73F applies, you apply it: if it does not, you do not.

What makes you consider the hesitation in this case to be not clearly deceptive?

 

I cannot see any bridge reason for the hesitation in this case, and even beginners are told in one of their very first lessons that hesitating with a singleton is never acceptable. The player had every reason to suspect that declarer could be deceived and damaged by the hesitation in case he needed to locate an outstanding Queen.

 

And why was there no reason for declarer to be misled in this case?

 

Maybe I have overlooked something but I cannot see how declarer should have seen that his LHO had nothing to consider and hesitated for no legal reason at all.

 

To me this is an obvious case for both L73D2 and L73F, and I adjust with no hesitation.

 

I am shocked over your statement: "Presumably he was thinking about something else.". Is this to be some excuse?

 

I don't know how you rule in England, but I feel sure that in Norway this statement would never be accepted as a reason to avoid L73 rectification (and possible PP) unless presented at the latest together with playing the singleton.

 

Sven

I simply have to register that bluejak (as have happened in some previous threads) avoids answering "difficult" questions that in no way are irrelevant.

 

Possibly because there are no answers?

[cherdanno]

OK, so hesitating with a singleton isn't ALWAYS deceptive. Several posts have given examples where declarer has the count of the suit, and knows that the card has to be a singleton. Hesitations before playing this card can never mislead. Maybe if declarer has miscounted, but there's no way that a defender can anticipate this. In fact, perhaps it's inappropriate to hesitate even in this situation, since it might cause declarer to think that he miscounted (perhaps he didn't notice a discard by the other opponent on an earlier trick).

 

But if the player could possibly hold more than one card in the suit, but actually only holds one, it's misleading to hesitate before following suit. Even if there would never be any reason to consider playing one of the other cards he could hold, the fact remains that with a singleton you have absolutely nothing to think about, so there's no bridge reason to delay. Getting distracted is not a bridge reason. Planning ahead is a possible bridge reason, but there's no reason it has to be done before playing to this trick, so it doesn't excuse it.

 

I'm definitely not a big fan of "Sorry, I have nothing to think about." types of comments. Does that mean that if you don't say it, declarer can reasonably assume you DO have something to think about? And the comment, or lack of comment, is UI to his partner, so he's putting him in an ethical dilemma. So to avoid problems, you either never say this or say it ALWAYS, but in the latter case it's meaningless because you're required to lie sometimes.

Barry, this is complete non-sense. Of course you never lie about this. If you hesitate and you don't say something, then your partner has UI; if you hesitate and say "I don't have a problem on this trick" your partner has UI. Well, there are laws to deal with this, but transmitting UI by itself is not illegal; deceiving declarer on the other hand may be illegal.

[jallerton]

Before ruling I ask the player to explain why it took him ten seconds to play the 10.

LHO was not aware that he spent ten seconds. RHO admitted that LHO took approximately ten seconds to follow with the ten.

Is LHO claiming that he paused for a period of under ten seconds, or is he claiming that he has played the card in tempo?

 

 

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

 

I disagree.

 

 

2. Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

 

 

If a player has only one card left in the suit (and if the player only has Q10 left under dummy's KJ for that matter) then any hesitation is undue.

 

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

 

....

 

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

 

 

 

 

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

 

....

 

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

 

In the story you recount from the Spring Foursomes, unless the defender had not appreciated that it was his turn to play [in which case an apology would have been appropriate] then several Laws were breached.

[barmar]

OK, so hesitating with a singleton isn't ALWAYS deceptive.  Several posts have given examples where declarer has the count of the suit, and knows that the card has to be a singleton.  Hesitations before playing this card can never mislead.  Maybe if declarer has miscounted, but there's no way that a defender can anticipate this.  In fact, perhaps it's inappropriate to hesitate even in this situation, since it might cause declarer to think that he miscounted (perhaps he didn't notice a discard by the other opponent on an earlier trick).

 

But if the player could possibly hold more than one card in the suit, but actually only holds one, it's misleading to hesitate before following suit.  Even if there would never be any reason to consider playing one of the other cards he could hold, the fact remains that with a singleton you have absolutely nothing to think about, so there's no bridge reason to delay.  Getting distracted is not a bridge reason.  Planning ahead is a possible bridge reason, but there's no reason it has to be done before playing to this trick, so it doesn't excuse it.

 

I'm definitely not a big fan of "Sorry, I have nothing to think about." types of comments.  Does that mean that if you don't say it, declarer can reasonably assume you DO have something to think about?  And the comment, or lack of comment, is UI to his partner, so he's putting him in an ethical dilemma.  So to avoid problems, you either never say this or say it ALWAYS, but in the latter case it's meaningless because you're required to lie sometimes.

Barry, this is complete non-sense. Of course you never lie about this. If you hesitate and you don't say something, then your partner has UI; if you hesitate and say "I don't have a problem on this trick" your partner has UI. Well, there are laws to deal with this, but transmitting UI by itself is not illegal; deceiving declarer on the other hand may be illegal.

You're right, I got that part wrong. But I still think the best policy is to never say anything, which avoids the problem entirely. Hesitating with a singleton, and then saying, "Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about" as a way of trying to avoid a 73F complaint, seems wrong. If someone is distracted, it's usually apparent from their mannerisms, and declarer is not likely to make a bridge inference about it.

 

Bridge is supposed to be a game where you base everything on the bids and plays, not extraneous remarks about why you behaved a certain way.

[blackshoe]

I wonder how often players who "think with a singleton" don't realize they're doing it.

[bluejak]

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

I disagree.

 

[snip]

 

In the story you recount from the Spring Foursomes, unless the defender had not appreciated that it was his turn to play [in which case an apology would have been appropriate] then several Laws were breached.

Methinks you should read the Laws:

 

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.

 

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Of course, but we are not talking 'unnecessarily': we are talking thinking.

 

Bridge is supposed to be a game where you base everything on the bids and plays, not extraneous remarks about why you behaved a certain way.

Bridge is supposed to be a game played according to the Laws. Since misleading opponents by tempo is a breach of Law, not issuing a disclaimer which would avoid such misleading is illegal, and pretty unethical since you are trying to gain something illegally, namely avoiding giving UI to partner.

[jallerton]

I had read the Laws, which is why I took the trouble to quote the ones which had been breached.

 

You quote Law 73D1. The sentence you have put in bold contains the word "unintentionally" so does not legalise the deliberate play of a singleton out of tempo.

 

Of course, but we are not talking 'unnecessarily': we are talking thinking.

 

We are talking about when a player has only one legal card to play. There is nothing to think about; to wait ten seconds before playing the only legal card is prolonging play unnecessarily.

[MFA]

I think Jallerton's arguments are very convincing. Including the reference to 74C7, which seems to forbid a defender to try to play poker with declarer, as it is described in this case.

This is not the way bridge should be played, and luckily the laws seem to agree.

[gnasher]

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

 

....

 

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

In the specific incident referred to by Bluejak, I don't think there was any intention to disconcert declarer. His attitude, as I recall, was simply "I wanted to think at that point, and I'm allowed to do so."

[pran]

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

 

....

 

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

In the specific incident referred to by Bluejak, I don't think there was any intention to disconcert declarer. His attitude, as I recall, was simply "I wanted to think at that point, and I'm allowed to do so."

Think about what?

 

His hesitation was an irregularity (Law 73D1), and he could be aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side (Law 23).

 

Unless his singleton was the only outstanding card in that suit declarer could be misled to believe that he held more.

 

His possible lack of intention to disconcert declarer is irrelevant, what is relevant is that his irregularity could.

 

Sven

[dan_ehh]

I don't mind someone thinking with a singleton when I already know how many he's got, but it's pretty selfish to think in the situation described by Bluejak.

 

Bridge is usually played with time limits.  The available time belongs to everyone at the table.  By thinking when you know that the suit is 3-3 but opponents don't, you are conducting your thought in the knowledge that the suit is 3-3, whereas declarer is likely to use the same time to think about what to do if the suit is 4-2.

 

The defender could, at no cost, have played his singleton and then stopped to think.  Not to do so is unfair, even if it is legal.

 

Methinks you should read the Laws:

 

QUOTE (Law 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.

 

 

I think gnasher's argument clearly articulates how the player thinking with the 13th card is benefiting from the delay.

Declarer is starting to worry about what to do when the suit isn't breaking, is getting upset about the fact that he might not make her contract, her mind is racing on possible ways to make the contract albeit the bad break, she is using a lot of mental energy, and all of this goes to waste when the (selfish) player finally follows with the card. Whether or not it was intentional, the delay WAS disconcerting and DID work in the hesitating player's advantage in the sense that declarer is now more fatigued (and annoyed) and is likely to do less successfully in the following rounds.

 

While there is no actual damage on the current deal, I believe this is an infraction which should warrant a warning, and if repeated I definitely think a penalty is in order. This is very undesirable behaviour.

[gnasher]

Think about what?

I understand that he was thinking about the later play. In fact, I'm sure, from my own knowledge of the person in question, that that's what he was doing.

 

His hesitation was an irregularity (Law 73D1), and he could be aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side (Law 23).

Perhaps this wasn't clear, but I was addressing the question of whether he'd broken Law 74C. That is why I quoted only Law 74C and not any of the others that Jeffrey mentioned. I wasn't suggesting that he hadn't broken any Laws.

 

Unless his singleton was the only outstanding card in that suit declarer could be misled to believe that he held more.

It was the only outstanding card in the suit.

 

His possible lack of intention to disconcert declarer is irrelevant, what is relevant is that his irregularity could.

The question of intent is plainly relevant to the question of whether he'd broken Law 74C, because Law 74C uses the words "for the purpose of".

[pran]

Think about what?

I understand that he was thinking about the later play. In fact, I'm sure, from my own knowledge of the person in question, that that's what he was doing.

I don't know what other jurisitions tell their directors, but we are told to never (except on the very first trick) accept that a player with a singleton in the suit led "was thinking about the later play" while hesitating to follow suit.

 

He has absolutely no bridge reason for not playing his singleton without hesitation and then do his thinking afterwards.

 

(This applies as much to declarer as it applies to both defenders!)

 

The argument that opponents should know that the player in question had a singleton is just a red herring and completely irrelevant.

 

(BTW, we are similarly very sceptical to LHO hesitating with two small cards in a suit when declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, or perhaps even better AJ, in that suit. Too many times have we heard the excuse: "I was considering whether to discard correct or false distribution". We just don't buy such excuses.)

 

Sven

[jallerton]

The question of intent is plainly relevant to the question of whether he'd broken Law 74C, because Law 74C uses the words "for the purpose of".

Indeed it is. The problem for the TD is that he will never know the player's intention.

 

Hence I agree with the sceptical Norwegain approach, as outlined by Sven, to players who hesitate when they have not got a decision to make at their current turn to play.

 

Back to the actual case. The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. Declarer surely knew this, so there is no reason for him to draw a false inference from the alleged hesitation. Hence there is no damage from the infraction and no reason for the TD to adjust the score.

 

However, what I would do is to assess a proedural penalty on the defender, to discourage the repetition of such behaviour.

[gnasher]

I don't know what other jurisitions tell their directors, but we are told to never (except on the very first trick) accept that a player with a singleton in the suit led "was thinking about the later play" while hesitating to follow suit.

Are you saying that if a player pauses before playing the 13th card in a suit, and then says that he was thinking about the later play, a Norwegian director will automatically rule that he was pausing "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent"?

[gordontd]

Back to the actual case. The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. Declarer surely knew this, so there is no reason for him to draw a false inference from the alleged hesitation. Hence there is no damage from the infraction and no reason for the TD to adjust the score.

I don't think I agree with this. Declarer is presented with two possibilities: LHO was thinking which of two cards to play, or declarer was thinking which card of a singleton to play.

 

Even if the actual doubleton holding should occasion no thought, the only legitimate explanation for the pause is that the defender was in fact thinking what to play.

 

Players do surprising things, and the pause in this situation - for no demonstrable bridge reason - has indeed deflected declarer from his normal line.

[aguahombre]

Gordon, that is about as clear as it can get. If was the first reply, it should have been the only reply.

[Trinidad]

Back to the actual case.  The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. 

So you say that from both holdings the play of the T is automatic? Wrong!

The Hideous Hog or the Rueful Rabbit might well break an ice cold contract. Your silly play of the 10 could cost two (!) tricks, Ignoramus!

[hv=n=sxxxxhxxxdxxxc9xx&w=sjtxhxxxdxxckjxxx&e=sk9xhakqdakqjtcax&s=saqxhjt98dxxxcqtx]399|300|[/hv]

 

The auction:

Pass-2♣

2♦-3NT

6NT

 

South leads the ♥J.

 

At some point, East will play ♣A and a club towards dummy, with the intent to finesse the J. If South now plays the ♣10, declarer will have no choice but to finesse and he will take 13 tricks. South will get the bottom he deserves.

 

But if South plays the ♣Q (whether with intent, like the Hog or because he had the ♣T sorted with the spades like the Rabbit) he has a sporting chance to beat the contract. So don't tell me that you don't have a choice what to play from QTx.

 

Now you will say: "But Rik, East has ♣Ax instead of ♣Axxx." That is true, but defenders holding QTx (and faced with a decision) don't know how many clubs declarer has, do they? So they will have to make their decision without knowing whether East has Ax or Axxx.

 

Rik

 

P.S. I will leave it up to the pros to figure out what the correct line of play for declarer is, after South plays the queen. But I am sure what the correct choice for a defender is when he can choose between "giving declarer the contract" or "giving declarer a headache".

[pran]

I don't know what other jurisitions tell their directors, but we are told to never (except on the very first trick) accept that a player with a singleton in the suit led "was thinking about the later play" while hesitating to follow suit.

Are you saying that if a player pauses before playing the 13th card in a suit, and then says that he was thinking about the later play, a Norwegian director will automatically rule that he was pausing "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent"?

Let me first of all clear up possible misunderstanding(s) here: I have never talked about the 13th card in a suit and never about hesitating before leading a card. Also I specifically exclude hesitations when playing to the first trick.

 

It is IMHO completely irrelevant for the question of a (deliberate or accidental) violation of Law 73D2 whether or not an opponent should be able to tell that a player who hesitated before following suit did so with a singleton.

 

And I see absolutely no reason for a player violating Law 73D2 in this way other than to attempt disconcerting an opponent. (Thinking about other things, e.g. the play of future tricks is no legal bridge reason.)

 

Consequently YES, a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton will always be considered hesitating for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent, a violation also of Law 74C7.

 

Sven

[gnasher]

Let me first of all clear up possible misunderstanding(s) here: I have never talked about the 13th card in a suit

Then we have been talking at cross purposes. All of the comments of mine that you have quoted, and apparently disagreed with, related to this specific incident:

She was playing some suit like AKQxx opposite xx, ace, all follow, king, all follow, queen, RHO follows, she discards, LHO thinks for a long, long time. Then he follows with the thirteenth card!

and to this comment:

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

....

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

I did try to make this clear by liberally sprinkling my comments with phrases such as "the specific incident referred to by Bluejak" and references to "Law 74C".

 

[stuff about other laws snipped]

 

Consequently YES, a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton will always  be considered hesitating for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent, a violation also of Law 74C7.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Law74C forbids hesitation for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent? Or are you saying that some other law forbids hesitation for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent?

 

I'm not just picking hairs here. Saying to somebody "When you paused it was against the rules and we're going to fine you" is very different from saying "When you paused it was a deliberate attempt to put your opponents off."

[blackshoe]

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

[pran]

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

You got the point.

 

But be aware that even if I have evidence that the player had no intent of deceiving opponents his hesitation is still an irregularity (Law 73D) and he is still subject to Law 23: Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, . . . . .

 

So I do not need to prove intent in order to rule damage and award an adjusted score. A fact that a player on the non-offending side has been confused by the hesitation and consequently been damaged is quite sufficient.

 

regards Sven

[gnasher]

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

You got the point.

But you can't penalise someone for pausing with an "apparent intent to deceive opponents" (unless the Norwegian regulations say otherwise, I suppose).

 

You can adjust the score because the pause misled the opponents, but only if the misinformation caused damage.

 

You can penalise somebody for not being particularly careful about a pause that may work to the benefit of his side (but the introduction to the Laws does suggest that this offence should rarely be penalised).

 

Or, you can penalise somebody for pausing with the actual intent to deceive. If you do that, you had better be sure that you're right.

[pran]

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

You got the point.

But you can't penalise someone for pausing with an "apparent intent to deceive opponents" (unless the Norwegian regulations say otherwise, I suppose).

I am not aware that I have used the word penalize anywhere in this context?

 

And when I write apparent intent to deceive opponents, that is to be taken that the director is satisfied such intent to exist (see in for instance Law 23: in the opinion of the Director)

 

You can adjust the score because the pause misled the opponents, but only if the misinformation caused damage.

To my best knowledge that is precisely what I have written?

 

You can penalise somebody for not being particularly careful about a pause that may work to the benefit of his side (but the introduction to the Laws does suggest that this offence should rarely be penalised)..

And this is something I have certainly not at all suggested.

 

Or, you can penalise somebody for pausing with the actual intent to deceive.  If you do that, you had better be sure that you're right.

When I write apparent intent that is to say that in the director's opinion the intent is clear. In a context like this I never use the word "apparent" to mean that something looks like but certainly isn't. And I never rectify for an irregularity unless I am sure that I am right. I can of course be in error, that is why we have appeals.

 

I am not immune to the possibility that a hesitation before following suit with a singleton could occationally be acceptable, but it certainly takes more than silly explanations to convince me of such a possibility.

 

Sven