Truth

[wank]

Aqx under kjtxxxxx and rho marked with the other 2 cards. Rho leads towards dummy. Is it legal to hesitate to let him know you have the ace?

[pran]

Aqx under kjtxxxxx and rho marked with the other 2 cards. Rho leads towards dummy. Is it legal to hesitate to let him know you have the ace?

Are you kidding?

[jallerton]

It's legal to hesitate if you have a genuine bridge decision as to which card you should play.

 

It's not legal to hesitate if the sole purpose of the hesitation is to deceive declarer.

[Fluffy]

tehnically speaking you are not deceiving him IMO, but I've always though this was ilegal.

[pran]

It's legal to hesitate if you have a genuine bridge decision as to which card you should play.

 

It's not legal to hesitate if the sole purpose of the hesitation is to deceive declarer.

- deceive an opponent or (as defender) communicating any information to partner.

[Vampyr]

tehnically speaking you are not deceiving him IMO, but I've always though this was ilegal.

 

Yes, quite. I am really surprised that Cyberyeti asked. I hope it was because a friend of his was insisting that it was acceptable to do this.

[gnasher]

Some of the respondents seem to be missing the point. The stated purpose of the pause is not to convey information to partner, and it's not to deceive an opponent. The objective is to give an opponent truthful information.

 

If it's done in order to gain an advantage it's illegal, because "players should be particularly careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side." (Law 73D1)

[blackshoe]

The object seems to be to give the declarer truthful but incomplete information. What's declarer going to think if he gets the message? "Where's the queen?" of course. So if your ploy talks him out of playing the jack you've perpetrated an illegal deception.

 

Bottom line: if you want declarer to know you have the ace, play it.

[wank]

exactly, the point was that you're not deceiving anyone and you're not doing it to communicate with partner, though as in many situations, partner may get unauthorised information, but that's his problem.

 

you're showing the ace and you have the ace, so imo it's warping language to say declarer is deceived. so which law does this contravene? the line about being careful when variations in tempo may work to your advantage is a general warning, surely, rather than a specific law allowing redress when such happens without it being otherwise illegal.

 

you may or not think this is revolting, but that's not the point is it? the issue is whether there's actually a law against it, or if it's one of these things that just contravenes certain [most?] players' personal codes of ethics.

[ggwhiz]

A more complete scenario is needed. With side entries, depending on the contract etc. it's not about the Ace at all, it's about the Queen and a hesitation should deny it. One of my early mentors was caught napping in a similar spot so he played the Queen!

[Cyberyeti]

Yes, quite. I am really surprised that Cyberyeti asked. I hope it was because a friend of his was insisting that it was acceptable to do this.

Surprised I asked what ? not my question.

[gnasher]

the line about being careful when variations in tempo may work to your advantage is a general warning, surely, rather than a specific law allowing redress when such happens without it being otherwise illegal.

No, it's a Law like all the other Laws, and you're obliged to obey it. If you break this Law and gain an advantage from doing so, it's subject to adjustment. If you knowingly break this Law with the intention of gaining an advantage, it's cheating.

[Vampyr]

Surprised I asked what ? not my question.

 

I am very sorry. I don't know why I thought it was you.

[billw55]

Interesting. A possibly related example: in a book by Frank Stewart, he gives an example wherein declarer "takes his time, making sure opponent can count him for" some particular shape which he does in fact have, in order to accomplish some other deception. Stewart does not discuss any ethical issues. What do you think? Sorry I don't have the full hand at my immediate disposal.

[Vampyr]

Interesting. A possibly related example: in a book by Frank Stewart, he gives an example wherein declarer "takes his time, making sure opponent can count him for" some particular shape which he does in fact have, in order to accomplish some other deception. Stewart does not discuss any ethical issues. What do you think? Sorry I don't have the full hand at my immediate disposal.

 

I think that maybe there is a difference between this and the OP, because if the pause is taken when it is your turn to play to a trick, you give the impression that you are thinking about which card to play to the trick.

[PhilKing]

Someone has hacked into Wank's account imo.

[gnasher]

Interesting. A possibly related example: in a book by Frank Stewart, he gives an example wherein declarer "takes his time, making sure opponent can count him for" some particular shape which he does in fact have, in order to accomplish some other deception. Stewart does not discuss any ethical issues. What do you think?

 

I think it's just as illegal as the example in the original post, and for the same reason. Declarer is failing to "be particularly careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side".

[barmar]

No, it's a Law like all the other Laws, and you're obliged to obey it.

Except that "be particularly careful" is a very subjective requirement. You can't really say that this is a law like the ones about bids/plays out of turn.

 

Of course, it's not the only subjective law. It's more like Law 74, with requirements like "maintain a courteous attitude at all times."

[Vampyr]

Except that "be particularly careful" is a very subjective requirement.

 

Yes. But in cases like the ones under discussion, *you* know whether you are being very careful, or doing quite the opposite. Maybe you can get away with it, but this does not make it any less cheating. (Obviously I don't mean you in particular, barmar).

[EricK]

Playing low quickly when you have the ace but not the queen when declarer leads towards the KJ in dummy (thus suggesting you don't have anything to think about) would also seem to be cheating - but has anybody ever got an adjustment in that scenario? I imagine it's more likely the defender would get congratulated for not giving the game away with a tell-tale pause.

[Vampyr]

Playing low quickly when you have the ace but not the queen when declarer leads towards the KJ in dummy (thus suggesting you don't have anything to think about) would also seem to be cheating - but has anybody ever got an adjustment in that scenario? I imagine it's more likely the defender would get congratulated for not giving the game away with a tell-tale pause.

 

If the play is quicker than normal, then I think that there should be an adjustment, though I don't know whether anyone has ever got one.

 

Obviously there is no difference between playing more slowly than your normal tempo to suggest indicate that you have the ace, and playing more quickly to suggest that you don't have it. Both are illegal, whether or not the unethical player is able to get away with it.

[broze]

exactly, the point was that you're not deceiving anyone

 

<snip>

 

you're showing the ace and you have the ace

 

Firstly, I do understand the point of the thread. The act OP describes is clearly unethical - so is it covered in the laws?...

 

"Is it legal to hesitate to let [declarer] know you have the ace?"

 

You have couched the question in this way but that is not really what you are doing. Actually you are hesitating to make declarer think you have Ax, which is clearly an intention to deceive. If your hesitation has anything to do with hoping declarer puts up the King then you are actually trying to suggest Ax. As Andy has said this act is illegal anyway under 73D1, but I think it is illegal prima facie anyway.

 

 

Except that "be particularly careful" is a very subjective requirement. You can't really say that this is a law like the ones about bids/plays out of turn.

 

So what? It is not a law like the others, no. But it is important to remember we are dealing with a Law book, not a rulebook. It is perfectly common for "laws" to contain subjective elements to be left to the disgression of the authority (in bridge, the director). This law (unlike so many others) is a good one imo, as it is broad and perfectly unambiguous. No one could claim that by hesitating here you are being at all "careful" not to achieve an advantage from the BIT.

[blackshoe]

As Andy has said this act is illegal anyway under 73D1, but I think it is illegal prima facie anyway.

No. If that concept were valid, you'd get rulings along the lines of "I can't find a specific rule against it, but I'm going to rule it's illegal anyway". Not only no, but Hell no. You must be able to tie your rulings to specific laws or regulations.

 

So what? It is not a law like the others, no. But it is important to remember we are dealing with a Law book, not a rulebook. It is perfectly common for "laws" to contain subjective elements to be left to the disgression of the authority (in bridge, the director). This law (unlike so many others) is a good one imo, as it is broad and perfectly unambiguous. No one could claim that by hesitating here you are being at all "careful" not to achieve an advantage from the BIT.

"This law"? Which one are you talking about? 73D1? I would have used 73D2, myself.

 

Laws aren't any different from rules, where a game is concerned, notwithstanding your capitalization.

[broze]

No. If that concept were valid, you'd get rulings along the lines of "I can't find a specific rule against it, but I'm going to rule it's illegal anyway". Not only no, but Hell no. You must be able to tie your rulings to specific laws or regulations.

 

That's not in the slightest what I was trying to suggest. I wasn't aware I was introducing a "concept" - I don't even understand why you've quoted that sentence of mine and then made that reply. Not only am I not saying that "I can't find a specific rule against it", I'm saying it is illegal under two laws in my opinion (73D2, which the OP thinks is not the case, and 73D1). What on earth is wrong about that?

 

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that something can be illegal without contravening any laws. :blink:

 

"This law"? Which one are you talking about? 73D1? I would have used 73D2, myself.

 

73D1, the law which, barmar and Andy were discussing. I thought that was clear. If you would have used 73D2, then you would have to explain to the OP why you think that by "showing" the ace by his hesitation, he is misleading the opponent. (See my last post why I think this is the case)

 

Laws aren't any different from rules, where a game is concerned, notwithstanding your capitalization.

 

The semantic point about 'rule' vs 'law' notwithstanding, what is your point? Are you saying that 73D1 is not a good law? I was stating that I think it is a very good law despite the fact that it is, as barmar said, very subjective. I can't work out whether you disagree or not. From your post it seems like you haven't read the whole thread.

[blackshoe]

That's not in the slightest what I was trying to suggest. I wasn't aware I was introducing a "concept" - I don't even understand why you've quoted that sentence of mine and then made that reply. Not only am I not saying that "I can't find a specific rule against it", I'm saying it is illegal under two laws in my opinion (73D2, which the OP thinks is not the case, and 73D1). What on earth is wrong about that?

 

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that something can be illegal without contravening any laws. :blink:

One meaning of prima facie is "accepted as correct until proven otherwise". In effect, then, you said that a TD should rule against someone who did this unless he (or someone) can prove there's no law against it. So it seemed to me you were trying to suggest something can be illegal without contravening any laws.

 

73D1, the law which, barmar and Andy were discussing. I thought that was clear. If you would have used 73D2, then you would have to explain to the OP why you think that by "showing" the ace by his hesitation, he is misleading the opponent. (See my last post why I think this is the case)

It wasn't clear to me at the time. B-)

 

Generally, in making rulings, I try to explain to the players involved why I'm ruling as I do. This in spite of the fact that most TDs (in the ACBL anyway) don't do that, and many players think it's a waste of time. IAC, I would have no problem explaining why I think 73D2 has been breached in this case.

 

The semantic point about 'rule' vs 'law' notwithstanding, what is your point? Are you saying that 73D1 is not a good law? I was stating that I think it is a very good law despite the fact that it is, as barmar said, very subjective. I can't work out whether you disagree or not. From your post it seems like you haven't read the whole thread.

You seemed to want to grant "Law" some higher status that "rule", or at least you differentiated between "Law book" and "rule book". All I'm saying is that I don't think there's any difference where a game is concerned (well, "rule" can include "regulation" which in bridge is a different thing from a "law", although having the same force). As a matter of fact, I think it's kind of pretentious for the powers that be in our game to call them "laws" rather than "rules". :ph34r:

 

I do not think 73D1 is a bad law. Nor is 73D2. If this situation occurred where I was directing, I'd want to investigate a bit. I'm inclined to rule a violation of 73D2, but that depends on intent, and if the transgressor insists (and I believe him) that he was not attempting to deceive, but rather to clarify, and does not accept my view that he didn't think about the impact of what he was doing deeply enough, I may have to find another law. There's also the question of what to do if declarer says "I was not deceived; I simply ignored his tempo." Of course, the law doesn't say that an attempt to deceive must be successful. :P

 

I read every post in these forums, including those from the very few players I've ignored because of their posts in other areas. I may lose track of a long thread, though, in which case I'll usually, but I admit not always, go back and skim it, particularly if something doesn't make sense. In this case though I didn't lose track of anything. I may not have explained myself very well. If so, I apologize, and I hope this post clears things up.