Thinking...

[Richard_E]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sha107632dj1063cq92&w=sq97hq98dq85c10853&e=s108653h5da974cj74&s=sakj42hkj4dk2cak6]399|300|Scoring: IMP

4♠ by North - I don't have the bidding![/hv]

 

This was played from the North hand on the lead of the ♣4. Declarer won the Ace and played ♠AK2, pitching a couple of diamonds and a heart. West returned ♣3 to dummy's ♣K. Now ♠J was cashed, followed by the ♥K. East thought for some time with the singleton♥5. Then apologised and said there was nothing to think about before playing it. Declarer then played ♥J and went up with the ♥A which was ruffed. Down one and cue the director. 

Law 73D1 requires players to be careful about their tempo when variations may work to the benefit of their side. The law effectively ends by saying that declarer draws inferences at his own risk. Here I found the ruling difficult as there was nothing to think about on the play of the card whatever East's hearts were!  

The ruling we arrived at split the loss, 50% of 4♠ making 50% one down. declarer's claim was that the hesitation made it very difficult to guess right, and that vacant spaces with East marked with 5 spades to West's three improves the percentage for the second round finesse. I feel uneasy about the ruling. What do the legal eagles think?

[lamford]

This was played from the North hand on the lead of the ♣4. Declarer won the Ace and played ♠AK2, pitching a couple of diamonds and a heart. West returned ♣3 to dummy's ♣K. Now ♠J was cashed, followed by the ♥K. East thought for some time with the singleton♥5. Then apologised and said there was nothing to think about before playing it. Declarer then played ♥J and went up with the ♥A which was ruffed. Down one and cue the director. 

Law 73D1 requires players to be careful about their tempo when variations may work to the benefit of their side. The law effectively ends by saying that declarer draws inferences at his own risk. Here I found the ruling difficult as there was nothing to think about on the play of the card whatever East's hearts were!  

The ruling we arrived at split the loss, 50% of 4♠ making 50% one down. declarer's claim was that the hesitation made it very difficult to guess right, and that vacant spaces with East marked with 5 spades to West's three improves the percentage for the second round finesse. I feel uneasy about the ruling. What do the legal eagles think?

This was, in my view, a very poor decision, and I would have ruled 100% of the table score.

 

I assume that East hesitated in fourth seat when the king of hearts was led from South at some stage, and then apologised for "wool-gathering" (sorry Frances, but I do like the expression).

 

This is very similar to appeal number 1 in the 2008 EBU appeals. If East had Qx of hearts he would never be considering playing the queen, so the inference is drawn at declarer's peril.

 

And I don't think the split ruling is legal anyway; though bluejak will clarify if that is so - it seems Reveleyesque to me.

[bluejak]

I do not understand what Law was breached. How can you adjust when no Law was breached?

 

Reveley rulings apply to UI from partner cases so are not relevant here. Mind you, I do not understand the ruling, but that is another matter.

 

Please explain the logic behind adjusting: it is beyond me. East said he had no problem: East had no problem: what is wrong with that?

[axman]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sha107632dj1063cq92&w=sq97hq98dq85c10853&e=s108653h5da974cj74&s=sakj42hkj4dk2cak6]399|300|Scoring: IMP

4♠ by North - I don't have the bidding![/hv]

 

This was played from the North hand on the lead of the ♣4. Declarer won the Ace and played ♠AK2, pitching a couple of diamonds and a heart. West returned ♣3 to dummy's ♣K. Now ♠J was cashed, followed by the ♥K. East thought for some time with the singleton♥5. Then apologised and said there was nothing to think about before playing it. Declarer then played ♥J and went up with the ♥A which was ruffed. Down one and cue the director. 

Law 73D1 requires players to be careful about their tempo when variations may work to the benefit of their side. The law effectively ends by saying that declarer draws inferences at his own risk. Here I found the ruling difficult as there was nothing to think about on the play of the card whatever East's hearts were!  

The ruling we arrived at split the loss, 50% of 4♠ making 50% one down. declarer's claim was that the hesitation made it very difficult to guess right, and that vacant spaces with East marked with 5 spades to West's three improves the percentage for the second round finesse. I feel uneasy about the ruling. What do the legal eagles think?

THe facts suggest that E has fallen asleep and attempted to recover via an extraneous communication.

 

 

E's falling asleep occurred at precisely the time which doing so would mislead declarer into playing a card to his disadvantage. Declarer in fact did so even after the warning that E had nothing to think about. It is notable that even if E held HQ5 he still had no legitimate thing to think about [considering a deceptive action is not legitimate] so the warning does nothing to dispel improper deception. As such the extraneous communication was meaningless and does nothing to dispel the effect of E's pause, which is not meaningless.

 

the reason the pause was not meaningless is because to justify the pause there must be something to consider and to have something to consider at that point in time there must be at least two cards from which to select. And since the only inference thereby available is that E holds precisely the HQ and declarer was improperly misled into acting upon that inference. L73F provides for adjusting the score in precisely that circumstance when the player was thereby damaged. The fact that E made an extraneous comment does not mitigate his culpability for his failure to satisfy L73D. E's pause all but guaranteees that declarer will always get it wrong and coupled with declarer not getting it right fulfills the definition of damage.

 

It has been asserted that because a bridge player would not hesitate holding Qx there is no deception to fall for. But that is not the standard of L73D.

 

However, what should not be ignored is the situation where declarer caused E's hestitation- as in he was culpable. FOr instance, if declarer himself paused at length sufficient to put E to 'sleep' the responsibility [and rightly so] therefore would fall solely upon declarer for tainting E's tempo. In this case no evidence was presented that considered such an occurrence.

 

Absent culpability of declarer an adjusted score is warranted. The players have been deprived of declarer having a fair chance so there is no way to know what would have happened, only what might have happened. Declarer has suggested reasoning for heavy weighting for the hook and it appears right to give that dominant consideration. A significant PP is also warranted.

[aguahombre]

If that was the answer to Blue's request, "Please explain the logic behind adjusting.", sorry: I, too, fell asleep trying to absorb it.

[iviehoff]

Failing to play in tempo because of distractions such as failing to realise it is your turn to play is a reasonably common situation. We have been advised to inform the opposition in the case that our break in tempo is due merely to distraction. If you do adjust on this case, what it means is that informing the opposition of the distraction is utterly pointless.

[WellSpyder]

If you do adjust on this case, what it means is that informing the opposition of the distraction is utterly pointless.

A fair point. I think, though, that the logic of some of the comments here suggests not adjusting even if there is no disclaimer, which seems a lot more controversial.

[axman]

If you do adjust on this case, what it means is that informing the opposition of the distraction is utterly pointless.

A fair point. I think, though, that the logic of some of the comments here suggests not adjusting even if there is no disclaimer, which seems a lot more controversial.

Not utterly pointless- it damages the other side as well as breaches L73B1.

 

The law does not provide permission to break law in order to avoid the consequences from breaking law.

[bluejak]

It is required to inform the opponents to avoid misleading them. That is thus a requirement of Law 73B1.

 

Saying it is a breach of law 73B1 is ridiculous: you are required as far as possible to follow the Law, and it is not a breach of Law to attempt to uphold the Law.

 

While I too fell asleep during axman's logic I can see no basis for it. You are required not to mislead: this player made sure he did not mislead: thus he did the right thing and there was no possible damage from the infraction.

 

It is not pointless to attempt to follow the Laws despite axman's assertion, so please do not stop people doing so. Misleading opponents is an infraction: attempts to stop the misleading are acceptable.

[dburn]

I do not understand what Law was breached. How can you adjust when no Law was breached?

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

Now, where a player has hesitated before playing a singleton (as in this case), there should at least be some investigation into whether this was in fact an attempt to mislead an opponent. One may be satisfied that it was not, but an apology from the offender is not evidence.

 

As to Law 73B1, announcing to the table that "I do not have a problem on this trick" may be held to be a communication with partner, as well as an attempt not to mislead declarer. Provided that partner does not act on the information received, there may be no breach of Law involved, but again the Director should not ignore the possibility.

[axman]

It is required to inform the opponents to avoid misleading them. That is thus a requirement of Law 73B1.

 

Saying it is a breach of law 73B1 is ridiculous: you are required as far as possible to follow the Law, and it is not a breach of Law to attempt to uphold the Law.

 

While I too fell asleep during axman's logic I can see no basis for it. You are required not to mislead: this player made sure he did not mislead: thus he did the right thing and there was no possible damage from the infraction.

 

It is not pointless to attempt to follow the Laws despite axman's assertion, so please do not stop people doing so. Misleading opponents is an infraction: attempts to stop the misleading are acceptable.

You quote no law that says so because there is no such law.

 

the legal way to not improperly mislead the opponents is to play the stiff in tempo. if you are to inform the opponents that you have improperly deceived them during the hand to be legal you must not communicate with partner in doing so.

 

Sometime in 1992 I ceased with No Problem [as when I in fact had no problem] [a] because the presence or absence tells partner what I have and to fail to be fastidious becomes improper deception in itself [c] it too often improperly deceives [d] improper deception does not necessarily cause damage

 

The standard of L73F is what legitimate inferences can a player derive when missing HQxx when an opponent takes pronounced time to play the H5. What other legitimate inference is there besides E holding at least one more H? If there is some other legitimate inference then there is no improper deception.

 

THere is an improper belief by some that declarer cannot be deceived by a hesitation from E because there is no holding that E could have that he would hesitate. I point out that a Probst cheat** would hesitate with a singleton [and say no problem].

 

** a PC is a fabrication by John Probst used to define personal ethical boundaries

[bluejak]

When a player says he has no problem he is attempting to stop an opponent being damaged by Law and stopping Law 73F producing an adjustment. That is so obvious I really did not think it needed saying, but if you are going to say there is no such Law I have to state the bleeding obvious: there is.

 

To attempt to communicate with partner by something said is certainly a breach of law, and I have no problem with David saying that it needs investigating. However to damage the opponents because someone might accuse you of this seems selfish and immoral.

 

As a matter of fact it does communicate with partner even if that is not the intent. But giving UI to partner is not an offence, only the use of it. To avoid misleading the opposition to avoid giving UI to partner is attempting to use the Laws unethically and illegally for your own benefit.

 

If you feel it is to your benefit to mislead opponents when you can avoid doing so then go ahead: I cannot stop you being deliberately unethical. But please do not produce specious arguments as to why it is a good thing to do so.

[dburn]

To avoid misleading the opposition to avoid giving UI to partner is attempting to use the Laws unethically and illegally for your own benefit.

I think this means "To mislead the opposition [in order] to avoid giving UI to partner is [...]". I could be wrong; if I am, then no doubt I will be added to the ever-growing list of people who have misinterpreted bluejak either by believing that he says what he means or (more naively) by believing that he means what he says.

 

But one cannot "use the Laws unethically"; it is, as someone once remarked, never unethical to play a game according to the rules. If the rules permit conduct that will be considered morally reprehensible, then the rules and not the conduct are at fault.

 

There is no Law that obliges you to attempt to avoid the legal consequences of a fumble, whether you had something to fumble about or not. Nor, more emphatically, is there a Law that gives you the right to make some remark in an attempt to avoid those consequences.

 

if you are going to say there is no such Law I have to state the bleeding obvious: there is.

Which one?

[jdonn]

I love these stories. Did south remember to thank east for telling him where the queen was? Has anyone seen a player (other than one who just hesitates all the time) hesitate with Qx here, ever?

[bluejak]

Players misquote Laws, or interpretations of Laws, in support of unethical behaviour. That is using the Laws unethically which is perfectly possible and being suggested here.

[VixTD]

I love these stories. Did south remember to thank east for telling him where the queen was? Has anyone seen a player (other than one who just hesitates all the time) hesitate with Qx here, ever?

Has anyone, for that matter, seen a player hesitate with x here ever? I don't see that the apology tells South the whereabouts of the queen.

 

I accept the argument that East, waking up after a short snooze to find himself last to play to the trick and holding either x or Qx, will feel embarrassed if there has been a pause before his play, and may feel the need to offer an excuse, as there is clearly no "bridge reason" for the hesitation in either case. What I'm less ready to accept is that the hesitation and the apology don't change the odds of East having either of these two holdings.

 

I think defenders are more likely to apologise when holding a singleton (even if they perhaps ought to in both cases), so unless South knows that East is the sort of player who will apologise with both holdings, then the hesitation might well suggest a singleton to South, notwithstanding the apology.

 

I don't like giving South a double-shot here, but neither should East be permitted to hesitate (either deliberately or carelessly), knowing that it can only work to his benefit.

[jdonn]

I love these stories. Did south remember to thank east for telling him where the queen was? Has anyone seen a player (other than one who just hesitates all the time) hesitate with Qx here, ever?

Has anyone, for that matter, seen a player hesitate with x here ever?

For the vast majority of players, virtually every time! Watch closely and you'll be amazed, 90% of bridge players have a slight hesitation with the singleton (albeit not nearly as blatant as in this example) and no hesitation with Qx. It's amazingly consistent and that's why south should thank east and why I find these stories so funny.

 

Btw if I find myself having dozed off and I wake up in east's position realizing I badly hesitated, I don't say "sorry no problem" since that refers to my holding. I say something more like "sorry I didn't realize it was my turn."

[Pict]

I love these stories. Did south remember to thank east for telling him where the queen was? Has anyone seen a player (other than one who just hesitates all the time) hesitate with Qx here, ever?

Has anyone, for that matter, seen a player hesitate with x here ever?

For the vast majority of players, virtually every time! Watch closely and you'll be amazed, 90% of bridge players have a slight hesitation with the singleton (albeit not nearly as blatant as in this example) and no hesitation with Qx. It's amazingly consistent and that's why south should thank east and why I find these stories so funny.

 

Btw if I find myself having dozed off and I wake up in east's position realizing I badly hesitated, I don't say "sorry no problem" since that refers to my holding. I say something more like "sorry I didn't realize it was my turn."

In this case and some similar, jdonn's solution seems the only ethical one.

 

My experience of hands like this is that the hesitator pauses not because he is asleep but because he is disappointed about the way the defence is going. He behaves badly, and gets a ruff that I don't believe for a minute he expected.

 

My oppos are a bit dim?

 

Procedural Penalty for players smarter than my oppos?

[Richard_E]

I'm ashamed that we adjusted to be honest. At the time I thought I should not favour my own team, as it was one of our players who paused. I also thought that Law 73 gave a basis for adjusting. As East was woolgathering - trying to figure out where the setting trick was coming from - it was hard for the player to see how to repair the damage. The statement seemed a fair effort. Knowing both players I'm sure East did not intend to deceive, and that North was put under pressure that was not deserved. I think he felt he could not easily make a rational decision about his play.

 

I suspect I was trying to apply what I thought was justice rather than the Law. Probably a beginner's error for a TD. :)

 

As an aside when should the director be called! After the pause and comment or after the ruff?