Thinking as declarer

[Hanoi5]

Say you hold as declarer AKx in a suit (dummy has three small cards) your RHO plays. You now think for a bit before playing the Ace. Is this wrong? I've heard some people say this is not ethical as winning with the Ace might lead defenders to think you don't hold the King. People who claim this say you should win with the King or else tell opponents you weren't thinking about this trick. Today I heard about the same scenario when holding KQTx, the suit is played by RHO and you think for some time before playing the K, is this also wrong?

 

Is this situation similar to thinking with a singleton? Are there any other similar situations or a general rule?

[blackshoe]

I would think that breaking tempo and then playing the Ace from Ace empty would be more likely to deceive the defenders than doing so from AKx. The BIT suggests you had something to think about, and if you have Ace empty, what have you got to think about?

 

In playing honor cards, a lot depends on how far into the play you are. If you play Ace early in the play, defenders may not have enough information to locate or suggest the location of the king. Late in the play is a different story.

 

Declarer is permitted to think. He is permitted to falsecard. The purpose of the latter is to (attempt to) deceive the defenders. Again, that is permitted. However, it is not permitted to think, or appear to think (to "hesitate") for the purpose of deceiving opponents. Therefore, if you are thinking about falsecarding, and take "too long" to do it, you shouldn't falsecard. If you are thinking about something else for too long, you probably still shouldn't falsecard. In the latter case, you might issue a disclaimer ("sorry, thinking about something else/no problem with this trick/whatever").

 

The general rule is "don't give the appearance of attempting to deceive with tempo (or remarks, or anything other than your actual calls and plays).

[campboy]

Why are you thinking? If you are trying to decide whether to win or not then you have a bridge reason for thinking and so it is ok; if you are not then you should play in tempo. In either case whether you play the ace or the king is irrelevant.

[Hanoi5]

I would think that breaking tempo and then playing the Ace from Ace empty would be more likely to deceive the defenders than doing so from AKx. The BIT suggests you had something to think about, and if you have Ace empty, what have you got to think about?

 

In playing honor cards, a lot depends on how far into the play you are. If you play Ace early in the play, defenders may not have enough information to locate or suggest the location of the king. Late in the play is a different story.

 

Declarer is permitted to think. He is permitted to falsecard. The purpose of the latter is to (attempt to) deceive the defenders. Again, that is permitted. However, it is not permitted to think, or appear to think (to "hesitate") for the purpose of deceiving opponents. Therefore, if you are thinking about falsecarding, and take "too long" to do it, you shouldn't falsecard. If you are thinking about something else for too long, you probably still shouldn't falsecard. In the latter case, you might issue a disclaimer ("sorry, thinking about something else/no problem with this trick/whatever").

 

The general rule is "don't give the appearance of attempting to deceive with tempo (or remarks, or anything other than your actual calls and plays).

 

Excellent, so how do you act as a Director in front of these situations? Not long ago a player was in a slam and led towards KJ at the table (he had to guess right to make 6) and LHO thought for a bit before playing small. Declarer played the King RHO won the Ace and LHO later won the Queen. I wasn't called for this, I just overheard it, but LHO is a mere beginner, so she didn't know what she was doing; how do you rule in such a situation when the player is a beginner? What about when he isn't? What about the player claiming s/he was thinking about something else?

[nige1]

Some time ago, II was kibitzing an international declarer who held ♦QJ3 in hand opposite ♦76 in dummy. LHO led ♦4 and there was the usual pause to contemplate the dummy. Then RHO won with ♦A as declarer followed with ♦3. RHO returned ♦5 and declarer tanked before playing the ♦J . LHO won ♦K and switched, when a diamond continuation would have beaten the contract. Defenders (both internationals) did not seem to notice what had happened. That was an occasion when it occurred to me that the law prohibiting kibitzers from reporting possible infractions to the director is barmy.

[AlexJonson]

My declarer opponents are welcome to think. It's much harder to play declarers who play quickly, and I'm not tempted to read anything (automatically) into declarer's play about his immediate holding - after all he might be wondering (in Scotland) if it's time to claim to avoid an apology, Nigel.

[awm]

Well it's possible that you have to think about whether to win the trick (AKx) or whether to stick in the ten (KQTx) and these are perfectly valid reasons to think.

 

There have been some appeals cases where declarer's only possible problem was whether/how to deceive the opponents (say holding AK-tight); in these cases the ruling seems to be the break in tempo is an infraction.

[nige1]

Well it's possible that you have to think about whether to win the trick (AKx) or whether to stick in the ten (KQTx) and these are perfectly valid reasons to think. There have been some appeals cases where declarer's only possible problem was whether/how to deceive the opponents (say holding AK-tight); in these cases the ruling seems to be the break in tempo is an infraction.

Seems fair to me :)

[barmar]

Excellent, so how do you act as a Director in front of these situations? Not long ago a player was in a slam and led towards KJ at the table (he had to guess right to make 6) and LHO thought for a bit before playing small. Declarer played the King RHO won the Ace and LHO later won the Queen. I wasn't called for this, I just overheard it, but LHO is a mere beginner, so she didn't know what she was doing; how do you rule in such a situation when the player is a beginner? What about when he isn't? What about the player claiming s/he was thinking about something else?

In general, you have to give beginners quite a bit of latitude when it comes to tempo. You can't take any inference from their hesitations, since they hesitate for no reason. I've seen them go into the tank when they open 1NT and get raised to 3NT.

 

But if a decent player pulls that stunt, I'd throw the book at them. It doesn't matter why they hesitated, or whether they intended to deceive; the Laws say that they're guilty if they could have known that the hesitation would work to their favor.

[blackshoe]

So all good players always and automatically "could have known" that whatever they did might work to their favor?

[pran]

So all good players always and automatically "could have known" that whatever they did might work to their favor?

Unless they can show a convincing "Bridge reason" for their irregularity (BIT or whatever) in the specific case the answer is yes.

[blackshoe]

So, the burden of proof is on the accused? Where in the law is that?

[pran]

So, the burden of proof is on the accused? Where in the law is that?

Law 73F.

 

A player is no longer just "accused" when facts of an irregularity (e.g. BIT) has been established.

[blackshoe]

"First the sentence, then the trial! Off with her head!"

 

73F doesn't say what you seem to think it says. And there's this: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit ("The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges").

[campboy]

Any decent player certainly could know that breaking tempo before playing from equal cards as declarer is likely to mislead the defence as to his actual holding, and that misleading the defence is likely to work to his advantage. So, for a decent player, the requirements of law 73F are satisfied in the case Nige1 describes; they are not necessarily satisfied in other cases (such as the original one) where not all of declarer's cards are equals.

[gnasher]

Unless they can show a convincing "Bridge reason" for their irregularity (BIT or whatever) in the specific case the answer is yes.

Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se).

[pran]

"First the sentence, then the trial! Off with her head!"

 

73F doesn't say what you seem to think it says. And there's this: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit ("The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges").

Law 73F: 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).

 

Varying tempo is one of the violations specified in Law 73. However, if the player can show cause (i.e. a demonstrable bridge reason) for such violation he shall not be subject to any rectification from it.

 

But if the Director cannot see any demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT (and the offender cannot show that he had such reason) then Law 73F tells the Director to award an adjusted score if he finds that an innocent opponent has been damaged and that the offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that it could work to his benefit.

 

Is this good enough?

[pran]

Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se).

From Law 73A2: Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

[nige1]

Sven Pran is convincing. It does not seem to matter how often virtually identical basic cases with agreed facts appear in legal fora.. Each case results in argument among directors about what the law means and how it should be applied. Often the dispute is unresolved.. The rules of Bridge are too sophisticated. How can players obey or directors enforce, If they don't understand the law?

[paulg]

It does not seem to matter how often virtually identical basic cases with agreed facts appear in legal fora.. Each case results in argument among directors about what the law means and how it should be applied. Often the dispute is unresolved.. The rules of Bridge are too sophisticated. How can players obey or directors enforce, If they don't understand the law?

Do you know any game, sport or regulated activity that does not have fierce debate about the application of its rules? At least in bridge the cases that we discuss in these forums represent a insignificant percentage of the rulings that are made without concern on a daily basis.

[nige1]

Do you know any game, sport or regulated activity that does not have fierce debate about the application of its rules? At least in bridge the cases that we discuss in these forums represent a insignificant percentage of the rulings that are made without concern on a daily basis.

There are at least four levels of dispute about rules

 

• About the their intentions (e.g. sanctions they impose: "Equity" or deterrence?)
• About their complexity and meaning. (Few -- if any -- understand Bridge rules).
• About how they should be applied to a given case. (Rules that result in Inconsistent rulings are a problem in any game).
• About the facts of the case. (I agree that this is unavoidable in any game).

[AlexJonson]

If we return to this case.

 

There will be very, very few situations where you can demonstrate that a declarer had nothing to think about and you were damaged - just think about it for a bit and you will undoubtedly understand what I mean.

 

Even the equals holdings referred to, as well as being rare, are dubious as a basis for an adjustmentment.

 

It's fine to say 'if declarer intends to deceive illegally' he has broken the laws. Gosh, what a controversial assertion that is (not).

[gordontd]

Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se).

Are you referring to L73D? "Not always" <> "not".

[pran]

If we return to this case.

 

There will be very, very few situations where you can demonstrate that a declarer had nothing to think about and you were damaged - just think about it for a bit and you will undoubtedly understand what I mean.

 

Even the equals holdings referred to, as well as being rare, are dubious as a basis for an adjustmentment.

 

It's fine to say 'if declarer intends to deceive illegally' he has broken the laws. Gosh, what a controversial assertion that is (not).

Although I cannot name any specific case I know that there has been cases where declarer was "convicted" of violating law 73D2.

[pran]

Are you referring to L73D? "Not always" <> "not".

Quite likely he is, and in that case he should be aware that the remainder of a law is at least as important as the first sentence.