Tollemache Qual. 2

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=st84hktd942c98764&w=sk653hj8765dat6cq&n=saq9hq3dj875cat32&e=sj72ha942dkq3ckj5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1nppp]399|300|1NT = 12-14

South's pass was slow[/hv]

Teams-of-eight X-IMPS -> VPs, good standard.

 

Result: 1NT(N)-1, NS -50

 

I was called at the end of play by West, who wanted to know what South had been thinking about, and asked me to look at his hand. NS did not deny that there had been a pause for thought. South said he was expecting a double from West, and had been thinking about transfering to 3♣ before the opponents started doubling, but decided against it. I asked West if he thought he had been misled in any way by the hesitation, and he said he might well have bid 2♦ (Asptro, spades and another, anchoring to the shorter major) if South had passed in tempo.

 

Are you minded to adjust the score, and if so, to what and under which rules?

[mgoetze]

Doesn't this belong in the "Simple Rulings" forum?

 

Law 73D1: "Inferences from such variation [in tempo] may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk."

[Free]

No adjustment, indeed simple

[Cyberyeti]

Doesn't this belong in the "Simple Rulings" forum?

 

Law 73D1: "Inferences from such variation [in tempo] may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk."

Not so simple, read 73D2 and 73F:

 

D. Variations in Tempo or 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.

 

2. 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.

 

F. Violation of Proprieties

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).

 

South should be well aware that the variation in tempo could work to his advantage, and the "demonstrable bridge reason" for transferring to clubs is pretty tenuous.

[WellSpyder]

No adjustment, indeed simple

I don't find this simple at all. Do good players really think seriously about transferring to 3♣ here? South certainly could have known at the time he hesitated that this could work to his advantage by putting West off bidding.

[mgoetze]

I don't find this simple at all. Do good players really think seriously about transferring to 3♣ here? South certainly could have known at the time he hesitated that this could work to his advantage by putting West off bidding.

 

I expect VixTD would have told us if he had any reason to disbelieve South and consider that he might have been intentionally misleading his opponents instead. Lacking that, I agree there is a demonstrable bridge reason, even though I happen to think it is a very bad reason. But I sometimes think about things which I obviously shouldn't do - it happens. A stronger player would recognize more quickly that what I am thinking about is a bad idea, but I am still allowed to think about it.

 

Furthermore, I often get the feeling that VixTD's idea of a "good standard" deviates significantly from mine.

[paulg]

I have little sympathy for South as I do not believe that rescuing to a three-level contract on a balanced hand is worthy of consideration.

 

I would adjust to 3♥ by East, making nine tricks. (Laws 73D1, 73F, 12C). I believe there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the slow pass and South knows (not even could have known) that this can only work to his benefit.

 

Paul

[paulg]

Furthermore, I often get the feeling that VixTD's idea of a "good standard" deviates significantly from mine.

As an outsider, and so that Frances and others do not have to defend themselves, the event normally has most of the better English players together with other experienced tournament players who are lack consistency rather than skill.

 

I expect them all to happily accept a PP if they are believed to have used UI. My expectations may be too high, but lack of knowledge of the Laws is not an excuse for this group. Hence my pretty harsh view of South's performance.

[campboy]

The only reason I might not adjust is that I think it is difficult for E/W to stay out of 4♥ after Asptro. Of course I would ask them what their follow-ups are to try to figure this out. South has no demonstrable bridge reason for thinking here.

[WellSpyder]

As an outsider, and so that Frances and others do not have to defend themselves, the event normally has most of the better English players together with other experienced tournament players who are lack consistency rather than skill.

Interestingly, not only did this event for a representative team from each English county include a number of regular English forum posters, it also included at least two of the regular English TD posters (GordonTD and Bluejak) as players rather than TDs - thereby demonstrating that here at least, it would be quite wrong to think of TDs in the same way that teachers are portrayed in the well-known saying "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

[blackshoe]

"That's a terrible/stupid/silly/ridiculous reason to be thinking" is not the same as "no demonstrable bridge reason". Please don't let your* opinion of the thought influence your objective determination of "demonstrable bridge reason".

 

* Generic "your", not directed at anyone in particular.

[Free]

Not so simple, read 73D2 and 73F:

 

South should be well aware that the variation in tempo could work to his advantage, and the "demonstrable bridge reason" for transferring to clubs is pretty tenuous.

It's correct that transfering to 3♣ is a poor choice. But that doesn't mean South can't think about that. He's not obligated to be a good player, he's allowed to make mistakes. Here he says he thought about transfering ♣ but eventually he made the best call by passing. Once he was thinking about an action, there's no way back: either you make a poor decision or you may (or may not) influence opps.

 

The rules above are about deliberately trying to mislead opps. If South can make a reasonable argument that he didn't do this with the purpose of misleading his opponents, then it's a pretty easy decision imo.

 

Also, what do EW want as adjustment? You can hardly ask them not to bid 4♥ with these hands when playing asptro, and that contract is defeated. Normally W was planning to bid 2♦ and pass a 2♥ relay. What's the difference for his hand when S hesitates? He either has his bid or he doesn't, and if South suggests values then partner is more likely to bid 2♥ than if S is weak.

[Cyberyeti]

It's correct that transfering to 3♣ is a poor choice. But that doesn't mean South can't think about that. He's not obligated to be a good player, he's allowed to make mistakes.

 

I think it's fair to say that he would probably not be playing in this event unless he was a better player than should be thinking about bidding 3♣.

[nige1]

I have little sympathy for South as I do not believe that rescuing to a three-level contract on a balanced hand is worthy of consideration. I would adjust to 3♥ by East, making nine tricks. (Laws 73D1, 73F, 12C). I believe there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the slow pass and South knows (not even could have known) that this can only work to his benefit.

Doesn't this belong in the "Simple Rulings" forum?

Law 73D1: "Inferences from such variation [in tempo] may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk."

Not so simple, read 73D2 and 73F: South should be well aware that the variation in tempo could work to his advantage, and the "demonstrable bridge reason" for transferring to clubs is pretty tenuous.

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).

Another "simple" ruling :) Paulg and Cyberyeti got it right again :)

[axman]

Doesn't this belong in the "Simple Rulings" forum?

 

Law 73D1: "Inferences from such variation [in tempo] may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk."

 

Some things are not simple at all:

 

 

Consider that west did not say what inference he took; he instead asked what it meant. As west has suggested he did not know what the inference meant, then how could he be deceived?

 

And

Consider that wishy-washy west merely “might well have bid 2D”. A person that might do such and such conversely might not; as such, the person doesn’t know what he would have done differently and thus the inference was not material.

 

But what really ties things into knots concerns the L74 effects with respect to west:

“I was called at the end of play by West, who wanted to know what South had been thinking about, and asked me to look at his hand.”

 

Because of the way west has gone about using innuendo his actions touch on berating /intimidating his opponents.

 

Not simple at all.

[mycroft]

Interestingly, not only did this event for a representative team from each English county include a number of regular English forum posters, it also included at least two of the regular English TD posters (GordonTD and Bluejak) as players rather than TDs - thereby demonstrating that here at least, it would be quite wrong to think of TDs in the same way that teachers are portrayed in the well-known saying "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Of course not. The full quote (my mother was a teacher) is:

 

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, go into administration."

 

Hidden: Y'all remember that I have my own Purple Carapace, right? (of course, mine's usually black)

[Phil]

I expect VixTD would have told us if he had any reason to disbelieve South and consider that he might have been intentionally misleading his opponents instead. Lacking that, I agree there is a demonstrable bridge reason, even though I happen to think it is a very bad reason. But I sometimes think about things which I obviously shouldn't do - it happens. A stronger player would recognize more quickly that what I am thinking about is a bad idea, but I am still allowed to think about it.

 

Furthermore, I often get the feeling that VixTD's idea of a "good standard" deviates significantly from mine.

 

So every time I feel like coffeehousing my opponents, I simply need to come up with a half-baked reason. Pass is so easy. This is closely related to tanking with Q42 in front of KJxx in dummy and saying "I was thinking about which spot to play".

[jeremy69]

I believe there have been rulings before concerning a slow pass by the partner of the 1NT opener where this player holds tram tickets and the Laws and Ethics committee advice has been that this is not an acceptable position to think and adjustment should be considered if one is persuaded some damage has been done. I find it hard to believe that South was unaware of the effect his think might have and if called to the table would have some difficulty in believing he was considering 3C. If he was then a good think followed by a pass probably has the same pre-emptive effect.

The players in the event are all representing their counties and should be judged appropriately considering this i.e. it is a significantly above average event.

[blackshoe]

I think it's fair to say that he would probably not be playing in this event unless he was a better player than should be thinking about bidding 3♣.

 

How is this relevant?

[bluejak]

It's correct that transfering to 3♣ is a poor choice. But that doesn't mean South can't think about that. He's not obligated to be a good player, he's allowed to make mistakes. Here he says he thought about transfering ♣ but eventually he made the best call by passing. Once he was thinking about an action, there's no way back: either you make a poor decision or you may (or may not) influence opps.

 

The rules above are about deliberately trying to mislead opps. If South can make a reasonable argument that he didn't do this with the purpose of misleading his opponents, then it's a pretty easy decision imo.

The purpose of the Law may be to deter intentional misleading, but the approach is deliberately not based on that, but based on 'could have known', so as to avoid cheating accusations.

 

So you adjust if you judge the Law requires it without saying anything about the player's intent.

[Cyberyeti]

I think it's fair to say that he would probably not be playing in this event unless he was a better player than should be thinking about bidding 3♣.

 

 

How is this relevant?

It's relevant in that anybody playing in that event should know enough about what's going on that:

 

a) they should realise the hesitation could work to their advantage

b) they should be a good enough player that "thinking of bidding 3♣" is unlikely to be a valid bridge reason. This is I suspect something bad players are more likely to think about.

[Free]

Cyberyeti has a point that, for example, in the Bermuda Bowl final this wouldn't be a valid reason to think. I just don't know how prestigous this Tollemache qual is, so I can hardly judge. But where do you draw the line?

[gnasher]

In my experience, when the partner of a 1NT opener thinks and then passes, it's at least as likely that he's thinking of finding a suit partscore than that he's thinking of inviting. Most players already know what their policy is about manky 11-counts or nice 10-counts, but with a 6-card minor or with 4-4 in the majors there is more to consider.

 

I'm not sure if that's relevant, though: this West thought the hesitation suggested strength, so this West was misled and I suppose that this West is entitled to redress.

[gnasher]

Consider that wishy-washy west merely "might well have bid 2D". A person that might do such and such conversely might not; as such, the person doesn't know what he would have done differently and thus the inference was not material.

 

So because West decided to be honest about his uncertainty we deny him any redress? If he would have bid 60% of the time, he is entitled to 60% of the score for bidding.

[VixTD]

Doesn't this belong in the "Simple Rulings" forum?

My understanding is that the "Simple rulings" forum is not so much for simple rulings, but for rulings which do not require application of bridge judgement. This one seems to require plenty.

 

The only reason I might not adjust is that I think it is difficult for E/W to stay out of 4♥ after Asptro. Of course I would ask them what their follow-ups are to try to figure this out. South has no demonstrable bridge reason for thinking here.

East said he would make a game try which asks for West's other suit. Surely West will be able to sign off in 3♥ now.

 

So because West decided to be honest about his uncertainty we deny him any redress? If he would have bid 60% of the time, he is entitled to 60% of the score for bidding.

I agreed that South has no demonstrable bridge reason for thinking here. I might well have ruled differently in the case of a beginner, but as has been said many times, these are not beginners. West drew a false inference from this, and so is entitled to redress under laws 73F and 12C. I polled a number of players on what they would do with the West hand after 1NT - P - P, and got a roughly equal split for passing and bidding 2♦, so I adjusted the score to 40% of 1NT(N)-1 and 60% of 3♥(W)=.

 

I didn't think any of this was particularly simple, and there was certainly some support for the opinion that South did have a legitimate reason for thinking. I pointed out to EW that if South had had a sixth club, or if his 5-card suit had been a major, he would presumably have had something to think about, and West would have been in much the same position. They agreed that in that case there would have been no reason to adjust the score.