Break in Tempo

[suprgrover]

[hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s3cppp=pc=n&s=skhaqt9dkj87532ck&w=sqj9742hk43dq4ca9&n=s863hj5dacq875432&e=sat5h8762dt96cjt6]399|300[/hv]Against 3♣, East led the ♦10, which declarer won perforce. She then led the ♥J, and East broke tempo (an extra second or so) before playing the ♥7. Declarer played low from dummy, and West ducked the trick (breaking tempo by a second or two). Declarer repeated the finesse, found that it lost, and has now called you over. You gather the facts, and let play continue. The defense take six tricks (three spades, a heart, and two clubs) and you are called back to the table.

 

Do you adjust the table score? If so, what do you adjust to? (Remember, this is the ACBL. While weighting the score might be a good academic exercise, if you decide to adjust I would like in any case to see your reasoning under Law 12C1e.)

[jeffford76]

Do you adjust the table score? If so, what do you adjust to? (Remember, this is the ACBL. While weighting the score might be a good academic exercise, if you decide to adjust I would like in any case to see your reasoning under Law 12C1e.)

 

I would start by asking east and west if they agreed they broke tempo, and if so what they were thinking about.

[barmar]

I would start by asking east and west if they agreed they broke tempo, and if so what they were thinking about.

Shouldn't that have been part of the "gather the facts" step, not the ruling when called back?

[billw55]

An extra second or two? This is supposedly a break in tempo? Their normal tempo must be really fast.

 

So, NS are claiming that the breaks in tempo damaged them, how? Perhaps that east's tempo might draw west's attention to his count signal? But the play of the ♥7 and all the information that goes with it is AI. Are NS saying that this west would not get the message if east played the seven one second faster? I'm a bit skeptical on that point.

[jeffford76]

Shouldn't that have been part of the "gather the facts" step, not the ruling when called back?

 

Sure, but that information wasn't in the original problem statement, and it seems relevant. If E/W have something legitimate to think about then their break in tempo isn't an infraction. I wouldn't rule they didn't without hearing from them what they were thinking about.

 

Not that I'm convinced there should be an adjustment anyway. It's unclear to me exactly how declarer thinks the tempo caused damage.

[CarlRitner]

 

An extra second or two? This is supposedly a break in tempo? Their normal tempo must be really fast.

 

 

I agree; this is East's first opportunity to pause and review the dummy.

I would be pinged on every trick if held to an extra second or two...

[suprgrover]

An extra second or two? This is supposedly a break in tempo? Their normal tempo must be really fast.

 

So, NS are claiming that the breaks in tempo damaged them, how? Perhaps that east's tempo might draw west's attention to his count signal? But the play of the ♥7 and all the information that goes with it is AI. Are NS saying that this west would not get the message if east played the seven one second faster? I'm a bit skeptical on that point.

 

NS claim that East's break in tempo implied that he held the ♥K and made retaking the finesse marked. I think they were annoyed at West's break in tempo more than anything else.

 

I agree; this is East's first opportunity to pause and review the dummy.

I would be pinged on every trick if held to an extra second or two...

 

Didn't East have that opportunity after leading to trick one?

[aguahombre]

Come on, guys. Declarer led the Jack and East is looking at AQT9 in dummy. It is staring him in the face. Does anyone really believe East was thinking (or faking thought) about the virtues of playing the King?

 

Anyway, that is the question I would ask Declarer if I were the TD called to the table.

 

BTW: The whole value of a Grosevenor Gambit, such as the duck of the heart finesse was realized. It gained nothing, it might have cost, and it irritated declarer.

Edited October 17, 2012 by aguahombre

[jillybean]

1 or 2 second break in tempo? C'mon guys, who can maintain a better tempo than that?

[sailoranch]

I'll take a stab at this. If we were to adjust, would a split score be reasonable?

 

I think the only likely result without the hitch is the line that declarer actually took at the table. If declarer is trying to make the contract, he'd need at least the one finesse. As for the second round, the fact that the jack held seems to be a stronger inference than any BIT. I don't really buy declarer's claim that without the hitch, he will suddenly be scared that West made a weird duck and play differently.

 

I think the alternative line, playing to the ♥A and pitching spades on the ♦K and the ruffed ♦J, is possible enough to be regarded as "at all probable."

 

So let's say 3♣-2, -100 for NS, and 3♣=, -110 for EW. That's assuming there actually was a break in tempo and that East had no reason for pausing, premises of which I am doubtful.

[iviehoff]

West ducked the trick (breaking tempo by a second or two). Declarer repeated the finesse, found that it lost, and has now called you over.

So West broke tempo, thus making it look like he had the king. Which he did. What is declarer complaining about? That he can't work out the different implications of non-misleading hesitations by players under and over finessing positions? I'm afraid you don't get rectification for being misled by things that aren't misleading.

[Trinidad]

If declarer thinks that East is coffeehousing, then it is a good idea to let the TD know that, regardless of whether there is any damage. Declarer can even add a comment that he doesn't think that there was damage, but that East should be informed about the rules.

 

Whether this is a case of coffeehousing is an entirely different question. Given the layout (AQT9 in dummy with the J led), I don't think that it is. But that is not relevant. If declarer thought it was -or might have been- he should tell the TD.

 

Rik

[iviehoff]

If declarer thinks that East is coffeehousing, then it is a good idea to let the TD know that,

Whether one gets adjustments for misleading breaks in tempo has nothing to do with whether anyone thinks anyone is coffeehousing, and both players and directors should scrupulously avoid any accusation without cast iron evidence.

 

But East does need a lesson here. It suffices to break tempo in a situation where there is no good reason thing to think about anything to risk being adjusted against, there need be no accusation of the misleading being done deliberately. Now the uninformed player might think that they are allowed to break tempo to think about whether and how to signal, but there is a directive that they are not allowed to break tempo for that. If a break in tempo for such a purpose is misleading, they will be routinely adjusted against. So this is what East needs to be told, nicely.

[lamford]

Now the uninformed player might think that they are allowed to break tempo to think about whether and how to signal, but there is a directive that they are not allowed to break tempo for that. If a break in tempo for such a purpose is misleading, they will be routinely adjusted against. So this is what East needs to be told, nicely.

That is not in accordance with 73D1:

 

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.

 

In this example, the variation in tempo cannot work to the benefit of his side, as declarer would repeat the finesse when West ducked if East had played slow smoothly. There is nothing in the Law book that I can find which indicates that one is not allowed to think whether to give count or not. 73F makes it clear that the requirement to adjust is that there is "no demonstrable bridge reason", and the time taken to give count correctly is clearly a bridge reason.

[suprgrover]

This is not in accordance with 73D1:

 

In this example, the variation in tempo cannot work to the benefit of his side, as declarer would repeat the finesse when West ducked if East had played slow smoothly. There is nothing in the Law book that I can find which indicates that one is not allowed to think whether to give count or not. 73F makes it clear that the requirement to adjust is that there is "no demonstrable bridge reason", and the time taken to give count correctly is clearly a bridge reason.

 

When this topic has come up before, see (http://iblf.matthew.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=4316&st=15) the consensus here has been that breaking tempo with small cards is problematic. (See page 94 of the White Book, for example. It would be nice if the ACBL had something one-tenth as useful as the White Book. We do have the Tech Files, which no one reads, and Laws Commission minutes that they stopped posting a year ago.)

 

I would expect that, at least some of the time, South might decide to go up with dummy's ♥A after East's in-tempo play of a small heart (doing this would be playing for down 1)--the old maxim that "if they don't cover it, they don't have it" comes to mind.

[iviehoff]

That is not in accordance with 73D1.

The authors of the EBU White Book, as OP correctly points out, do not read 73D1 like you do. At para 73.1 they write, as OP has read:

"Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1 makes clear that this is an infraction."

 

I'm mistaken in thinking that there was a directive from WBFLC on this, it was this clear instruction in the White Book I was recalling.

[Cyberyeti]

Am I alone in thinking that W knowing what has happened, deliberately broke tempo to try to negate his partner's break and put declarer back on track, and that declarer really should have picked up on it ?

[RMB1]

Am I alone in thinking that W knowing what has happened, deliberately broke tempo to try to negate his partner's break and put declarer back on track, and that declarer really should have picked up on it ?

 

If West wanted to clarify the position he would just win ♥K?

[Phil]

Playing a card in 1-2 seconds IS in tempo. Some people can't even get cards out of their hand that quickly. Unless East has a heart void he has NOTHING to think about when the J is led, but declarer should understand this as well.

 

West's duck isn't very bright. I wonder what he is playing for?

[barmar]

Playing a card in 1-2 seconds IS in tempo. Some people can't even get cards out of their hand that quickly.

The OP said "an extra second or two". That implies that this was in addition to the normal time it takes to play.

[olegru]

10-12 seconds sounds like the normal time to play card in the second trick; and I would certainly not able to differentiate 12 seconds and 13.5.

By the way, after declarer played ♦Ace, as East I would stop to count distribution and probably will take more than 12 seconds too.

[barmar]

10-12 seconds sounds like the normal time to play card in the second trick; and I would certainly not able to differentiate 12 seconds and 13.5.

Doesn't that depend on how quickly partner and declarer took to play to trick 1? It's recommended to plan the play and defense at that time.

 

If third hand played quickly to trick 1, does that mean his partner gets extra time to think during trick 2? I don't think it should. 3rd hand should probably make a general habit of pausing at that time, either to plan himself or allow partner to plan. Many RAs explicitly allow defenders to take this time, and indemnify them against UI and MI concerns.

[Cyberyeti]

If West wanted to clarify the position he would just win ♥K?

Yes but if he would have ducked had partner not twitched, ducking the K slowly is in some odd way the way to do this while negating partner's twitch.

[olegru]

Doesn't that depend on how quickly partner and declarer took to play to trick 1? It's recommended to plan the play and defense at that time.

 

If third hand played quickly to trick 1, does that mean his partner gets extra time to think during trick 2? I don't think it should. 3rd hand should probably make a general habit of pausing at that time, either to plan himself or allow partner to plan. Many RAs explicitly allow defenders to take this time, and indemnify them against UI and MI concerns.

I don't think time of West's play in trick 1 could be usefully used by East in that board.

 

Ace of ♦ by declarer was a telling (and probably not very expected) card and East should reconsider hie thoughts about full distribution at this point.

[barmar]

I don't think time of West's play in trick 1 could be usefully used by East in that board.

 

Ace of ♦ by declarer was a telling (and probably not very expected) card and East should reconsider hie thoughts about full distribution at this point.

As soon as he sees the 7-card suit in dummy he should start thinking about the distribution. There aren't many different combinations, so it shouldn't be that hard. Declarer winning might be unexpected, but it shouldn't have much effect on what to do when declarer plays on hearts. As soon as dummy comes down, you can see that the heart suit is an issue and plan what to do when declarer starts working on it.