Would you be misled?

[greenender]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sa7hqt65da872c865]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

N opens 1NT (12-14). E passes, you pass as S. W bids 3♦ which is passed back to S, but only after prolonged thought from E.

 

As S, assume that you play double for penalties in this position. Does the long pause for thought by RHO make you more or less likely to double?

 

You need to know that RHO is a notoriously slow player at the best of times, and has been known to agonise over decisions where most players of her basic standard (moderate to good club player) would see little problem. Still, the pause was long, even for her.

 

Two alternative scenarios:

 

1. E/W are playing some variant of Astro, so 3♦ was the cheapest way to show the suit.

 

2. E/W are playing natural or Landy , so 2♦ by LHO would have been natural.

 

Your thoughts?

[helene_t]

If dbl is penalty I would always dbl.

 

Dunno what I would make of the BIT. Maybe E has short diamonds and thought of improving the contract to 3♠. That would mean that 3♦ certainly goes down but maybe dbl would help them to a safer spot. All in all I don't think it would influence my decision, even if my hand had been a tad weaker so that dbl was a close decision.

[shyams]

Agree with double. I don't think it depends on the opponent's long pause.

[PrinceNep]

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but the BIT by E is irrelevant unless it is determined afterward that it was done entirely out of deception. Sounds to me that this is just a club player who was put into a difficult situation.

 

Hesitations are going to happen ... it only becomes an infraction if the partner takes advantage of it. E has the right to think as much as they want, but what W does have heavy implications for the remainder of the hand.

 

S is aloud to take the hesitation into consideration when making their decision, but are usually warned by the Directors that they are doing so at their own risk.

 

So S should realize that they may not be "protected" in this situation. Take whatever you feel is the normal action.

 

To answer the question, personally I X ... but I'll admit I have a fair share of -470/-670.

[iviehoff]

I think hesitator may just be very confused and be taking his time about either (a) making his perfectly obvious pass, or (;) making his perfectly ridiculous pass.

 

I think this, because when I overcalled 3D over 1N once, my partner took a very long time to make a ridiculous call because she'd never seen a jump overcall over 1N before, and was unable to apply any common sense as to what it might contain.

[iviehoff]

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but the BIT by E is irrelevant unless it is determined afterward that it was done entirely out of deception.  Sounds to me that this is just a club player who was put into a difficult situation.

Let me correct you then. See Law 73F, it's quite clear.

 

"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)."

 

There is precedent that deciding which among low cards to play, or thinking about the future of the hand (except 2nd or 3rd to play at trick 1) are not good bridge reasons for a hesitation.

[greenender]

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but the BIT by E is irrelevant unless it is determined afterward that it was done entirely out of deception. Sounds to me that this is just a club player who was put into a difficult situation.

 

[... ]

 

S is aloud to take the hesitation into consideration when making their decision, but are usually warned by the Directors that they are doing so at their own risk.

 

So S should realize that they may not be "protected" in this situation. Take whatever you feel is the normal action.

 

To answer the question, personally I X ... but I'll admit I have a fair share of -470/-670.

S's conclusions about E's tank are at his own risk, except if E had no demonstrable bridge reason for said tank, in which event there does not need to be any intent to mislead.

 

Most players in this particular club would be very chary about reading anything into this player's tanks, on the grounds that often enough there is no correlation between her slow tempo and any demonstrable bridge reason to think. Whilst I personally find her a frustrating opponent because she wastes so much time, I wouldn't go so far as to say that her BITs are free of significant information.

[bluejak]

I have certain problems playing MPs, and I think one of them is that I do not double enough. I am interested that everyone would double, when I would not. So probably I am wrong.

 

But in answer to your question, no, the tank does not affect my decision, whether playing Astro or not.

[jeremy69]

I would double if it were penalty. I imagine East is feeling uncomfortable with one or no diamonds and if they move to anything else I shall also double. but if I have guessed wrong about the reason for the tank I think it will be my tough luck.

[jdonn]

If you let a tank by a notoriously slow east player talk you out of a penalty double on this hand, then you would do yourself a favor to pay less attention to the opponents and more attention to your cards.

[greenender]

Thanks to all for replies.

 

I ruled that result stands, as I felt that the logic was as jdonn puts it: indeed, for myself, I would probably have been more likely to double this particular player after the tank. Shows what I know about psychology - in discussion afterwards E confided to me that she had been thinking about the implications of 3♦ (as 2♦ would have been natural) and wondering if she had enough to try 3N. She didn't, of course, far from it.

[PrinceNep]

Ivie,

 

I agree this law has some relevance, however in this instance I think this line:

 

"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)."

 

Is very important.

 

Did this player know that the hesitation that they were creating would be beneficial to their side? I doubt it.

 

It is more likely that the hesitation is caused due to the fact they are uncertain about the bid or if their hand should take a bid.

 

My point clearly stated that if it were out of deception, that it would be against the rules. So I don't feel as though I misspoke in my original post.

[peachy]

My point clearly stated that if it [the hesitation, my edit] were out of deception, that it would be against the rules. So I don't feel as though I misspoke in my original post.

The law is and IMO should be blind to "intention to deceive". The ruling is the same for intentional hesitators (= cheaters) as well as innocent ones once the requirements for ruling are otherwise met. Barring a confession ["I meant to deceive"], intention cannot be established as a fact without reading the hesitator's mind.

[awm]

My point clearly stated that if it [the hesitation, my edit] were out of deception, that it would be against the rules.  So I don't feel as though I misspoke in my original post.

The law is and IMO should be blind to "intention to deceive". The ruling is the same for intentional hesitators (= cheaters) as well as innocent ones once the requirements for ruling are otherwise met. Barring a confession ["I meant to deceive"], intention cannot be established as a fact without reading the hesitator's mind.

However, you can always ask "why did you take so long to call over 3♦?"

 

The important question is not "what did the player intend" but rather "is there a valid bridge reason for the break in tempo"? If there is no valid bridge reason (or the person couldn't state a valid bridge reason) and we can conclude that a reasonable but invalid inference was drawn by the other side due to the hesitation and the hesitating player could have known (note this is a weaker standard than "did know" -- in particular a bad player who has no idea about such things still "could have known" even if arguably he "didn't know") then we should adjust.

 

Here it seems sufficiently clear-cut to double that it's hard to conclude that not doubling is a "reasonable" inference to draw from the BIT.

[peachy]

My point clearly stated that if it [the hesitation, my edit] were out of deception, that it would be against the rules.  So I don't feel as though I misspoke in my original post.

The law is and IMO should be blind to "intention to deceive". The ruling is the same for intentional hesitators (= cheaters) as well as innocent ones once the requirements for ruling are otherwise met. Barring a confession ["I meant to deceive"], intention cannot be established as a fact without reading the hesitator's mind.

However, you can always ask "why did you take so long to call over 3♦?"

 

The important question is not "what did the player intend" but rather "is there a valid bridge reason for the break in tempo"? If there is no valid bridge reason (or the person couldn't state a valid bridge reason) and we can conclude that a reasonable but invalid inference was drawn by the other side due to the hesitation and the hesitating player could have known (note this is a weaker standard than "did know" -- in particular a bad player who has no idea about such things still "could have known" even if arguably he "didn't know") then we should adjust.

 

Here it seems sufficiently clear-cut to double that it's hard to conclude that not doubling is a "reasonable" inference to draw from the BIT.

Of course you can always ask, but that is just going through the motions. Even if they intended to deceive, by now it is probably clear to them that such intention would be unfavotrably looked upon, to say the least, so nobody in their right mind would tell me "because I intended to deceive them"

Anyway, agree on your post. And happy that the law is dealing with facts, not intentions.

[bluejak]

When you ask a question, and get an answer, you often have a fairly good idea of what is going on, even if a silly answer that gives the game away is unlikely. So the question is a worthwhile one.