Demonstrable Bridge Reason

[Vampyr]

I got the impression from this thread that the West player involved was of a high standard. Hence I would expect him to plan his plays in advance more than others and that was the basis for my (somewhat illegal) ruling. Perhaps the TD had reason to think otherwise, and if so, I'm in no position to question his judgement, though perhaps he might have asked West some follow-up questions, for example "why didn't you choose five discards for the diamonds back at trick 3", or "how did you think discarding the ♥J might have helped". (The purpose is to try to judge whether the "could have misled" outweighs the "demonstrable bridge reason", not to poke fun at West!)

 

Yes, this was a strong player and one who bared his ♥J without obvious thought.

 

Anyway, part of the problem with the ruling was that the director thought that for us to be damaged, the hesitation would have had to be deliberate and done for the purpose of deceiving. We would have felt more comfortable with the ruling if the director had understood the laws involved.

[nige1]

A simpler example. Suppose, at IMPs and favourable vulnerability, you held ♠ x x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ x x

Partner opened a weak notrump and you tanked for a long time before passing. As you suspected, opponents can make game. Your LHO complained to the director: He assumed that you were considering a raise, so he passed on his 14-count. You explained to the director that you were thinking about "Garbage Stayman" but eventually decided that a pass would provide less opportunity for opponents to enter the auction. IMO

• Your Bridge reason for thinking is demonstrable; and valid in so as far it goes.
• You could have known that your tank would be likely to mislead LHO
• A long tank is especially misleading.
• The director should probably rule against you even if he completely believes your explanation.

[aguahombre]

But he would be pretty dumb to completely believe the explanation :rolleyes:

[billw55]

A simpler example. Suppose, at IMPs and favourable vulnerability, you held ♠ x x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ x x

Partner opened a weak notrump and you tanked for a long time before passing. As you suspected, opponents can make game. Your LHO complained to the director: He assumed that you were considering a raise, so he passed on his 14-count. You explained to the director that you were thinking about "Garbage Stayman" but eventually decided that a pass would provide less opportunity for opponents to enter the auction. IMO

• Your Bridge reason for thinking is demonstrable; and valid in so as far it goes.
• You could have known that your tank would be likely to mislead LHO
• A long tank is especially misleading.
• The director should probably rule against you even if he completely believes your explanation.

Maybe it's just me but the two parts I bolded, in combination, sound clean contrary to the wording of law 73F.

 

Maybe people should consider giving less weight to inferences from tempo? Or be less judgmental about what things they think are acceptable for someone else to be thinking about?

[nige1]

Maybe it's just me but the two parts I bolded, in combination, sound clean contrary to the wording of law 73F. Maybe people should consider giving less weight to inferences from tempo? Or be less judgmental about what things they think are acceptable for someone else to be thinking about?

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).

billw55 may well be right. I cling to the hope that the the director may judge that the bridge problem is worth thought but there is no demonstrable reason for a long tank -- even when the tanker is genuinely convinced that he faces a 2-pipe problem.