Bridge Reason

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=st874hkt52d32ck32&w=sakj53hq3d954ct95&n=shaj964dakq876cq8&e=sq962h87djtcaj764&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1cp1sd2s3h4s5hpp5s6hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

♠ A lead. Ruffed in dummy.

 

♥ A all follow.

 

♥ J ...

 

east detaches a card nearly places it on the table. Restores the card to his hand. Pulls the same from his hand and plays it.

 

Later east claims he "thought" he had two cards stuck together.

 

Declarer finesses and goes down in the slam.

 

Is this a "bridge reason" for the out of tempo play?

[1eyedjack]

I don't think so, although I believe his statement. Presumably declarer would still have gone down if East had just followed in tempo

[pran]

I don't think so, although I believe his statement. Presumably declarer would still have gone down if East had just followed in tempo

The important fact is that East's irregularity can most likely mislead Declarer.

 

This fact shall override a presumption that Declarer would have gone down anyway, and TD should therefore adjust the result to a successfull choice by Declarer.

[wyman]

Is there anything East can do to extricate himself from this situation, or does declarer have a freebie here? Sometimes by a mechanical error, east will pull two cards, or they will stick, or something. I think east saying "sorry, no problem" opens another can of worms. If he had said, "sorry, two cards stuck together," or something similar, can the onus be lifted? I don't necessarily disagree with a ruling for declarer in this case, but I sympathize with east (if he's believable) and don't think that declarer should get two bites at the apple.

 

In general, though, I thought it was only a violation to intentionally vary tempo in a manner that could mislead declarer. Varying tempo by accident, or because of a mechanical error should result in no adjustment; after all, you're allowed to take inference from the tempo or mannerisms of the opponents only at your own risk.

 

Or am I mistaken?

[Vampyr]

 

In general, though, I thought it was only a violation to intentionally vary tempo in a manner that could mislead declarer. Varying tempo by accident, or because of a mechanical error should result in no adjustment; after all, you're allowed to take inference from the tempo or mannerisms of the opponents only at your own risk.

 

Or am I mistaken?

 

You are not mistaken in what constitutes a violation, but declarer may be protected when the hesitation was at a particularly sensitive time.

[wyman]

You are not mistaken in what constitutes a violation, but declarer may be protected when the hesitation was at a particularly sensitive time.

 

Is that in the laws or just a de facto agreement among directors/players? Or is the sensitivity of the situation going to be used to impugn the credibility of the defender?

 

Sounds argumentative, so I apologize for the tone, but I'm seriously asking.

[Cascade]

Presumably declarer would still have gone down if East had just followed in tempo

 

Interesting why do you say this?

[lamford]

Is there anything East can do to extricate himself from this situation, or does declarer have a freebie here?

No, he has no demonstrable bridge reason for thinking with two small. So declarer can run the jack and claim redress when it loses. It does not matter whether we believe East. It is enough that he could have been aware the BIT would gain.

[1eyedjack]

Interesting why do you say this?

I observe that few experts rely on an a priori 52% break when there are other indicators. Here it appears from the opening bid that LHO has the majority of the Spades, so that alone brings it down to a 50% guess (Spades may even be 6-3), and that is before considering the high card requirements for East's opening bid, which I would rate as putting him heavy favourite for the Heart Q, especially after SpA lead (which I realise may not be backed by King).

 

Of course I could be quite wrong, but I would expect most players to hook the Heart here.

 

I realise that this has little to do with the ruling.

[lamford]

Of course I could be quite wrong, but I would expect most players to hook the Heart here.

As would I (I was amazed West went to 5S with Qx in hearts), and declarer should only get redress for the loss he actually incurred. I presume this can be weighted, and perhaps the right action is to poll players of similar ability and find out what they do. Declarer deserves some adjustment, as he would never get it right after the hitch.

[Cascade]

I observe that few experts rely on an a priori 52% break when there are other indicators. Here it appears from the opening bid that LHO has the majority of the Spades, so that alone brings it down to a 50% guess (Spades may even be 6-3), and that is before considering the high card requirements for East's opening bid, which I would rate as putting him heavy favourate for the Heart Q, especially after SpA lead (which I realise may not be backed by King).

 

Of course I could be quite wrong, but I would expect most players to hook the Heart here.

 

I realise that this has little to do with the ruling.

 

Thanks

 

Does anyone think it is interesting that east hitched on the crucial trick after opening with a sub-minimum hand?

[Cascade]

As would I (I was amazed West went to 5S with Qx in hearts), and declarer should only get redress for the loss he actually incurred. I presume this can be weighted, and perhaps the right action is to poll players of similar ability and find out what they do. Declarer deserves some adjustment, as he would never get it right after the hitch.

 

Interesting I hadn't thought of a weighted adjustment in this way.

 

Does east deserve a procedural penalty in addition to any score adjustment?

[aguahombre]

Does anyone think it is interesting that east hitched on the crucial trick after opening with a sub-minimum hand?

yes

[Cyberyeti]

E isn't thinking with x or Qx, the hitch is irrelevant, no adjustment.

[Cascade]

E isn't thinking with x or Qx, the hitch is irrelevant, no adjustment.

 

It wasn't a thinking it was a removal of a card from the hand and replace it and then pull it a second time to play. Surely this clearly indicates a choice of plays.

[AlexJonson]

We don't believe East was 'thinking'. We believe he pulled the wrong card (Queen) and swapped it.

 

So unless he more or less tells us he has only one card left to choose from, the adjustment seems inevitable.

[bluejak]

First of all I find it amazing that anyone outside North America would think of adjusting on a guess without weighting the adjustment. How on earth can anyone believe that anyone would get a guess 100% correct with no infraction?

 

Second, it is an infraction to hesitate unintentionally in tempo-sensitive situations, and no, wyman, it is not just a "a de facto agreement among directors/players". Nor has it anything to do with "impugning the credibility of the defender". It is just illegal.

 

Law 73D1 says:

 

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.

The second sentence is the important one: in a tempo-sensitive situation a failure to be "particularly careful" is an infraction.

[bluejak]

Does anyone think it is interesting that east hitched on the crucial trick after opening with a sub-minimum hand?

No.

 

:ph34r:

 

Is there anything East can do to extricate himself from this situation, or does declarer have a freebie here? Sometimes by a mechanical error, east will pull two cards, or they will stick, or something. I think east saying "sorry, no problem" opens another can of worms. If he had said, "sorry, two cards stuck together," or something similar, can the onus be lifted?

Sure, why not?

[wyman]

"However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."

 

The second sentence is the important one: in a tempo-sensitive situation a failure to be "particularly careful" is an infraction.

 

I will defer to others' knowledge of common rulings, but there have been many discussions on here in which people get nitty about the differences in wording between "should," "must," "may," etc.

 

Regardless of his actual holding, it's clear east had no problem playing the small heart here, and any error/difficulty that east had in extracting the card was purely mechanical. So I'm not sure why it's more plausible that east slipped up and pulled the heart queen and put it back to pull the small heart than it is that east accidentally pulled the card next to the small heart, whatever it was.

[peachy]

"However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."

 

 

 

I will defer to others' knowledge of common rulings, but there have been many discussions on here in which people get nitty about the differences in wording between "should," "must," "may," etc.

 

Regardless of his actual holding, it's clear east had no problem playing the small heart here, and any error/difficulty that east had in extracting the card was purely mechanical. So I'm not sure why it's more plausible that east slipped up and pulled the heart queen and put it back to pull the small heart than it is that east accidentally pulled the card next to the small heart, whatever it was.

 

Accidents can be costly and can have consequences.

The relevant Law does not discuss intentions, motives, or the lack of either. It was unfortunate for E that the tempo break and related fumbles and switches happened in a tempo sensitive situation.

[wyman]

I'm just curious now.

 

In a similar situation, if (at teams) south had finessed for an overtrick instead of taking a safety play to make his contract, would he be entitled to redress?

 

What if east had fumbled in a situation where the bidding indicated that he had a singleton?

 

And did I understand correctly that you'd not give south redress had east said "I'm sorry, two cards stuck together" at the time?

[aguahombre]

Does anyone think it is interesting that east hitched on the crucial trick after opening with a sub-minimum hand?

No.

This is the kind of question that can be answered "yes", but can't be answered "no" unless the person is omniscient.

[bluejak]

That is demonstrably incorrect, since I answered No and am not omniscient.

 

It is also fairly childish since you know perfectly well what both the asker and myself meant.

[aguahombre]

That is demonstrably incorrect, since I answered No and am not omniscient.

 

It is also fairly childish since you know perfectly well what both the asker and myself meant.

And, you knew what I meant --jokingly that one person cannot answer for everyone. Relax.

[blackshoe]

I will defer to others' knowledge of common rulings, but there have been many discussions on here in which people get nitty about the differences in wording between "should," "must," "may," etc.

 

The laws say that when a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction, albeit not often penalized. When a player "may" do something, failure to do it is not wrong. When he "does" something, that establishes correct procedure without suggesting a penalty. Other words ("must", "shall", "shall not", "must not") specify infractions that are more serious than "should" (and so should probably be penalized much more often than they are, at least IMO).