Bridge Reason

[gombo121]

The question is whether there has been an infraction of law. If there has, and the NOS were damaged, they're due adjustment.

 

It appears Gombo is arguing there cannot have been damage from an infraction, either because there was no infraction, or because although there was, it didn't cause the damage.

 

Thank you for translating my grumbling into a short coherent message.

 

Indeed, I my point basically is that in any 73F situation there can be no damage to innocent side but self-inflicted one (because of 73D).

 

Even you don't buy this argument in general, in this particular case it is impossible to produce a logical link between the alleged infraction and supposed damage.

[gombo121]

Declarer drew a false inference - East had an alternative card to play

The inference is not false, it is completely misguided. East evidently has 13 cards to put on table, but whether he has an alternative legal card to play is unknown - he does not even pause for thought.

 

Could have known that it would work to his advantage - this seems obvious in this case

Obviously not. It is crystal clear that it can never be to his advantage to play queen in this position, therefore nobody can knew in advance that hesitation (either true or fake) can influence declarer or how the declarer would read it.

This is NOT a two-way finess case.

 

 

Now the director shall adjust the score.

Yes, he shall (provided he rejected my arguments above), but a split score is an adjusted score, according to Law 12. Why don't director exercise this option?

 

 

A declarer who was inclined to finesse anyway but draws the 'false inference' that RHO has another card and the director is instructed by law to adjust.

Should not alleged 'false inference' be at least somewhat plausible? Law does not require that explicitly, but this is obvious, isn't it?

 

And one more - you repeatedly state it is a tempo problem; certainly, it is not - it is a case of (possibly inapropriate) mannerism. This does not change much in the discussion, but it is not the same thing either.

 

:ph34r:

 

I'm sorry writing so much in this thread but it does touch my sore point. I'll stop here, since I think I put out all my arguments at least twice. Thank you for discussion. :)

[Cascade]

The inference is not false, it is completely misguided. East evidently has 13 cards to put on table, but whether he has an alternative legal card to play is unknown - he does not even pause for thought.

 

 

Obviously not. It is crystal clear that it can never be to his advantage to play queen in this position, therefore nobody can knew in advance that hesitation (either true or fake) can influence declarer or how the declarer would read it.

This is NOT a two-way finess case.

 

 

 

Yes, he shall (provided he rejected my arguments above), but a split score is an adjusted score, according to Law 12. Why don't director exercise this option?

 

 

 

Should not alleged 'false inference' be at least somewhat plausible? Law does not require that explicitly, but this is obvious, isn't it?

 

And one more - you repeatedly state it is a tempo problem; certainly, it is not - it is a case of (possibly inapropriate) mannerism. This does not change much in the discussion, but it is not the same thing either.

 

:ph34r:

 

I'm sorry writing so much in this thread but it does touch my sore point. I'll stop here, since I think I put out all my arguments at least twice. Thank you for discussion. :)

 

Your way of playing to me seems to encourage coffeehousing. I don't think detaching cards, replacing them in your hand, pulling them out again; playing in unusual tempo (even you write hesitation) etc are legitimate parts of the game. They are extraneous mannerisms that may deflect your opponent from your actual holding.

 

If you pull a card out and don't play it immediately or for any other reason do not play a card immediately when you have only one card left in the suit then it must be a reasonable inference that you have an alternative play on that trick. At least it can't be a completely misguided inference as you claim. By immediately I mean in your normal tempo.

 

Yes there are some players who are bad enough that they would cover an honour in this and similar situations.

 

Some years ago in reasonably quick session against two different international players I got covers in no gain situations. The first with QJxxxx opposite stiff A needing just one more trick for my contract and with only one more entry to the dummy I play the queen from the dummy and set up the jack when my RHO covered. The second one I do not recall the details but in a dangerous situation where the hand was going to completely fall apart if I lost the lead so at MPs I was going to cash up for down one but led the honour from dummy intending to rise ace and take my tricks but got a cover and made an overtrick!

 

I don't see how it can be reasonable to allow these players to play their cards in varying manner and tempo with impunity.

 

We have a choice here of inferences to draw:

 

1. The player had a choice of one card to play

 

2. The player had a choice of two cards to play

 

Choice 2. is perhaps divided up into two subcategories

 

2a. The player had a choice of two cards but would never cover so really one choice

 

2b. The player had a choice of two cards but is bad enough to erroneously cover

 

In cases 1 and 2a I would never expect a tempo or mannerism break.

 

In case 2b there might be a tempo or mannerism break.

[AlexJonson]

There can be accidents and there can be players with poor mannerisms.

 

Doesn't mean that TDs have to switch off their brains on a given hand.

 

I'm not sure I'm convinced by gombo121, but the more that people say he has no argument, the more I feel sympathetic to his position.

[barmar]

It seems like this is a discussion we've had many times: is there a difference between having only one LEGAL card to play and having only one SENSIBLE card to play?

 

If you have a singleton, it should take absolutely no thought to follow suit with it. Is it really just as automatic to play 2nd hand low when declarer is finessing? So if the player hitches, it never distinguishes between the two cases, he must have been thinking about something else?

[bluejak]

Why oh why we so easily dismiss "at his own risk" clause?

 

East fumbles - for whatever reasons. Can declarer deliberately ignore the fumble or can he not? Sure he can, but he deliberately chooses not to, he chooses to base his action on East's mannerism. Fine, rules allow for that, but on his own risk. Declarer decided to take his chances and failed - so what?

 

You have a harsh look on East's attitude? - I can see your point. So PP him, or adjust his score, or both. But declarer's score should not be adjusted in any way, next time he will try harder to get real information on card distribution from play, not from mannerism of his opps.

 

Split score could and I believe should be used in such situations.

Under which Law?

 

:ph34r:

 

I am unaware that we dismiss the clause. Again and again it has been explained in forums that “at his own risk” refers to situations where opponents have not misled you in any way. That is very different from ignoring the clause.

 

For example, if a player fumbles when playing his card, if you decide he had a decision you do so at your own risk, and if you are wrong, too bad.

 

Compare this where there is a clear hesitation by the defender rather than a simple fumble. Now you have the right to assume he had a decision and may get an adjustment if he has none.

 

Another situation is where an opponent hesitates showing a decision, and you deduce what his decision was and act on it. So long as he has not misled you, and has a decision, then you will not get an adjustment if it turns out his decision was not the one you thought it was. So you use your interpretation of his apparent decision at your own risk.

[gombo121]

Sorry for being back but I think it is rude to leave direct questions unanswered. (OK, that's a lame excuse, I know. B-))

 

Under which Law?

 

What exactly do you mean?

 

No damage but self-inflicted one for S under 73D (no, I don't buy "only have not been misled situations" approach - see below), infraction for E, if necessary, under 73F, adjustment and split score under 12B1, 12C1(a,b,f, and, possibly, c).

 

 

I am unaware that we dismiss the clause. Again and again it has been explained in forums that “at his own risk” refers to situations where opponents have not misled you in any way. That is very different from ignoring the clause.

 

Please, define "not misled you in any way". It seems to me, that there are only two options: 1) the opponent' play was perfectly smooth or 2) declarer got it right. Otherwise, declarer did get a wrong conclusion from the mannerism, i.e "was misled", wasn't he? In neither case you'll see a complaint and, indeed, I'm yet to see an example of complaint against misleading hesitation in play, which have been rejected under 73D. Instead I've seen rulings under 73F against players who fumbled with a single card (of course), with two smalls and three smalls. So if you did not manage to play in tempo to the trick for whatever reason, you'd better have an honor, because the only honorable decision for you is to play or not to play it - and how can declarer fail now?! (I'm not sure that even honor will always help - what about a lead of a stiff from dummy toward KJххх in hand - would you apply 73D or 73F if LHO pauses with Qхх and declarer plays king?)

 

Yes, it would be nice if everybody always played in "steady tempo and unvarying manner". But it is unreasonable to expect that in practice and the Law 73D is a recognition of this fact. I can't see how you distinguish between mere "fumble" and "clear hesitation". Pauses in those cases are just several seconds, usually under 5s, - they are clearly noticeable, because smooth tempo for most players is 1-2s per card, but still very short to be caused by anything, like simple loss of concentration. I believe, there is no way to provide consistent distinction between them and rulings based on the difference are bound to be subjective and inconsistent, which obviously should be avoided if possible.

 

Also, applying Laws in the way you do (the way it is commonly agreed at the moment) creates very perverse incentive for players - if they notice any fumble or hesitation by an opponent, they don't need to try and get their choice right, instead they need to invent a way how this fumble can possibly mislead them, because that provides a free ride, even if their logical conclusions are completely unreasonable.

 

Both those drawbacks can be avoided if we refuse to compensate misled players - we remove incentive to complain and therefore get much less dubious cases to judge; at the same time we still have a stick to penalise clear cases of "coffehousing". It would certainly makes matters simpler and I firmly believe in simpler is better.

[Cascade]

The problem is we also need to seriously remove the incentive to break tempo deceptively.

 

This needs to be done both in terms of the advantage that might accrue to the tempo breaker and to the disadvantage that befalls the innocent opponent.

[bluejak]

No damage but self-inflicted one for S under 73D (no, I don't buy "only have not been misled situations" approach - see below), infraction for E, if necessary, under 73F, adjustment and split score under 12B1, 12C1(a,b,f, and, possibly, c).

 

You have to provide a reason for splitting the score that accords with the Laws. If there is no damage then there cannot be a split score. If there is damage then both sides get redress, which is the same for both sides except in certain specified circumstances. None of the circumstances and relevant Laws apply here. Laws 12C1B, 12C1E, 82C would allow a split score but none seem relevant here.

 

 

 

Please, define "not misled you in any way". It seems to me, that there are only two options: 1) the opponent' play was perfectly smooth or 2) declarer got it right. Otherwise, declarer did get a wrong conclusion from the mannerism, i.e "was misled", wasn't he? In neither case you'll see a complaint and, indeed, I'm yet to see an example of complaint against misleading hesitation in play, which have been rejected under 73D. Instead I've seen rulings under 73F against players who fumbled with a single card (of course), with two smalls and three smalls. So if you did not manage to play in tempo to the trick for whatever reason, you'd better have an honor, because the only honorable decision for you is to play or not to play it - and how can declarer fail now?! (I'm not sure that even honor will always help - what about a lead of a stiff from dummy toward KJххх in hand - would you apply 73D or 73F if LHO pauses with Qхх and declarer plays king?)

 

Yes, it would be nice if everybody always played in "steady tempo and unvarying manner". But it is unreasonable to expect that in practice and the Law 73D is a recognition of this fact. I can't see how you distinguish between mere "fumble" and "clear hesitation". Pauses in those cases are just several seconds, usually under 5s, - they are clearly noticeable, because smooth tempo for most players is 1-2s per card, but still very short to be caused by anything, like simple loss of concentration. I believe, there is no way to provide consistent distinction between them and rulings based on the difference are bound to be subjective and inconsistent, which obviously should be avoided if possible.

 

Also, applying Laws in the way you do (the way it is commonly agreed at the moment) creates very perverse incentive for players - if they notice any fumble or hesitation by an opponent, they don't need to try and get their choice right, instead they need to invent a way how this fumble can possibly mislead them, because that provides a free ride, even if their logical conclusions are completely unreasonable.

 

Both those drawbacks can be avoided if we refuse to compensate misled players - we remove incentive to complain and therefore get much less dubious cases to judge; at the same time we still have a stick to penalise clear cases of "coffehousing". It would certainly makes matters simpler and I firmly believe in simpler is better.

Having read this carefully I see no justification whatever for the suggestion that we dismiss the clause: what you say here seems irrelevant to the idea that we dismiss part of the Law.

[gombo121]

Sorry for taking such a long time to get back but I've been quite busy lately.

 

Laws 12C1B, 12C1E, 82C would allow a split score but none seem relevant here.

 

I beg to differ. In my opinion the Law 12C1B is fully relevant. Quote:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the nonoffending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) legal butor by wild or gambling action subsequent to the irregularity it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted

Under the Law 73D any inference taken from opponent's mannerism constitutes exactly a gambling ("on his own risk") action, therefore no relief for innocent side.

 

 

Having read this carefully I see no justification whatever for the suggestion that we dismiss the clause: what you say here seems irrelevant to the idea that we dismiss part of the Law.

Again, English is not my first language, but in my book a provision, which is never applied is de facto being dismissed.

You failed to provide a practical example, where 73D have been applied, you also failed to define where are limitaions on what counts as misleading action as opposed to any random hitch.

[qwery_hi]

This so called problem is easily solved by allowing allowing players to hesitate whenever and for whatever reason they want, as long as it doesn't convey information to one's partner by prior agreement.

 

Then declarer would by necessity learn to ignore tells, and if he chooses to act on tells, he does so knowing all the risks involved.

 

The current rules are absolute nonsense. The safest legal way to follow them would be to take 60s for *all* actions, including passing as opener on a 0 count and following suit with a singleton.

 

Do defenders get any adjustment in this situation? Declarer leads up to KJx in dummy, and once LHO has played low, will go into a tank for a minute before calling for a card. If he then guesses right, all the commentators and bridge world will be all praises for his "table sense".

 

 

The problem is we also need to seriously remove the incentive to break tempo deceptively.

 

This needs to be done both in terms of the advantage that might accrue to the tempo breaker and to the disadvantage that befalls the innocent opponent.

[bluejak]

Under the Law 73D any inference taken from opponent's mannerism constitutes exactly a gambling ("on his own risk") action, therefore no relief for innocent side.

Unfortunately you do not write the Laws, and this is not the normal interpretation. An action at your own risk is not necessarily gambling. Furthermore, it is only "at your own risk" if you have misread a reasonable action: opponents are not, as a matter of law, allowed to mislead you with mannerisms when they could have known they would mislead.

 

Again, English is not my first language, but in my book a provision, which is never applied is de facto being dismissed.

You failed to provide a practical example, where 73D have been applied, you also failed to define where are limitaions on what counts as misleading action as opposed to any random hitch.

I am sorry, I failed to realise you had given me homework to do.

 

There are lots of occasions where this Law is followed and lots of occasions where there are adjustments when it is not.

[gombo121]

I am sorry, I failed to realise you had given me homework to do.

 

There are lots of occasions where this Law is followed and lots of occasions where there are adjustments when it is not.

 

I do not consider it a reasonable discussion where one side neither substantiates its claims nor responds to arguments of the other.

 

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that my view is a minority, but what you call "normal" interpretation is, frankly, pure nonsense, which cannot be applied in any consistent non self-contradictory way. If "at you own risk" is not a gambling, than I don't know how you define either.

 

I get, you don't care providing examples of 73D in action, may be somebody else would volunteer?

[Vampyr]

I am sorry, I failed to realise you had given me homework to do.

 

There are lots of occasions where this Law is followed and lots of occasions where there are adjustments when it is not.

 

But David, he is trying to learn. Isn't that why you are here?

[aguahombre]

I get, you don't care providing examples of 73D in action, may be somebody else would volunteer?

May I try, from just having read the laws --not from an official standpoint?

 

Other sections, when combined, indicate that taking a view based on tempo or verbage (extraneous stuff) is at the player's own risk; also that if the player who provides the extraneous stuff could have known it might damage the opponents an adverse ruling might follow.

 

73D refers to doing it on purpose with intent to deceive. A whole different thing.

 

BTW, the word "risk" does not always refer to gambling. It can also mean peril.

Edited October 4, 2011 by aguahombre

[barmar]

If "at you own risk" is not a gambling, than I don't know how you define either.

In bridge, "gambling" is usually interpreted as taking a pretty large risk, as in Gambling 3NT. Bidding game with only 24 combined HCP is also risky, but no one would call it gambling, just slightly aggressive.