Is this a suitable case for a weighted ruling?

[VixTD]

I wonder if you made up a situation different from what I described?

No, I'm talking about the same situation.

 

When an offending side with an apparently deliberate irregularity has misled the non-offending side away from a winning line of play which otherwise would absolutely have been reasonable then I shall accept a statement from NOS that they would have selected the winning line had there been no such irregularity.

 

I consider the "right" for OS to have this winning line weighted with an alleged possibility that NOS might have chosen a less favourable line forfeited with their irregularity.

 

And honestly, I cannot see how this is giving the non-offenders a huge windfall wildly in excess of the expected result before the irregularity occurred , I simply refuse to override a reasonable and credible statement from the non-offenders with objections from the offenders.

If you are awarding 100% of 6♣= because you think that without the irregularity NS would have made the contract all the time or nearly all the time then I have no argument with you. But you seem to want to give them 100% of this score just because it is plausible that they would have made the contract had there been no irregularity, and that, I think, is wrong. You have to assign a probability to that outcome and base the assigned score on that probability.

 

You can ask South how they were going to play, but don't be surprised if they swear they were going to take whichever line would have been successful on the actual layout of the cards.

 

What do you really think would have happened if East had played low smoothly? Unless South thinks they're playing against beginners who would think about covering the ten, they're on a complete guess here, and would be quite likely to play for the drop, or even run the ten if they were betting on East's inability to underplay the queen without a hitch. The more I think about it, the more I think that giving them even as much as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous.

 

By all means add a procedural or disciplinary penalty of any size you see fit to EW, but don't assign a score that you really don't think would have occurred in practice as a punishment.

[VixTD]

IMO, Pran is right to adjust to 6♣=. (Whether to weight scores seems to be at the discretion of the director).

 

Directors impose PPs and DPs rarely and inconsistently. Some directors never impose any. You can understand their reluctance, when Peter Allen explains how circumstances, of which the director might be unaware, might make a PP or DP inappropriate.

The EBU has recently issued guidelines for directors to try to improve consistency in applying penalties. This won't lead to perfection, and it certainly won't satisfy you, but you might just agree it's a help. The difficulty in this case is a common one: that the TD won't know whether East's fumble was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or just carelessness. If it's the former a disciplinary penalty of 6 imps (or more if you think it's a particularly outrageous offence) would be appropriate:

 

[WB2.8.3.4] m. Deliberately misleading an opponent during the play e.g. by a hesitation DP

If it's the latter, I can't find a specific clause in the guidelines to cover it, but I'd probably award a procedural penalty of 3 imps for failing to take proper care to avoid variations in tempo where this could work to the player's benefit (law 73D1).

[blackshoe]

Much better if the rules were changed to include an element of deterrence in the basic rules, themselves, without stigma of deliberate law-breaking.

That stigma has been invented by players. It does not exist in the law.

[blackshoe]

"Inventing" is exactly what they are doing. They are making up a score which hitherto didn't exist for these pairs. That it is also a product of some computation, logical reasoning and guesswork doesn't make it any less an invention.

I thought I was the only pedant around here. B-)

 

You are, of course, literally correct by at least one meaning of the word, but it can carry a connotation of "it ain't true" or "it ain't correct" and "I just made it up." It's that to which I was objecting.

[gnasher]

And when I adjust to 6♣= it is because I consider that result quite likely when I ignore any line of play that could be suggested by the irregularity and also take into account the possible purpose(s) with that irregularity.

 

I do not accept any allegation that my ruling here is in conflict with Law 12, on the contrary I consider my ruling fully in accordance with Law 12 after a deliberate violation of Law 73D2.

 

Consider these two cases:

(1) E hestitates accidentally, and declarer goes wrong

(2) E hestitates intentionally and for the purpose of deception, and declarer goes wrong

 

Would you give NS the same score in both cases, or would you give NS more in case 2?

 

If you give NS more in case 2, your ruling is in breach of 12B1

[nige1]

Consider these two cases:

(1) E hesitates accidentally, and declarer goes wrong

(2) E hesitates intentionally and for the purpose of deception, and declarer goes wrong

Would you give NS the same score in both cases, or would you give NS more in case 2?

If you give NS more in case 2, your ruling is in breach of 12B1

Might the director rule the same way as Pran, in both cases, without trying to read the mind of the hesitater, citing the popular and generally applicable L23.

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

"Popular and generally applicable?" Where do you get this stuff, Nigel?

[Aardv]

1) No one but a rank beginner would hesitate here with Q8x or Q87x

2) Therefore, hesitating with a small singleton would work to East's benefit only if declarer runs the 10 as a double shot, and the TD/AC decline to adjust.

3) Therefore East could not reasonably suppose that hesitating with a singleton would, in expectation, improve his score

4) Therefore we should not rule against him under 73F

5) Therefore I would let the table result stand

 

Anyone agree with me?

[gnasher]

Might the director rule the same way as Pran, in both cases, without trying to read the mind of the hesitater, citing the popular and generally applicable L23.

It's irrelevant whether you're adjusting under Law 23 or or Law 73F. In neither case do you have to read anybody's mind, and in both cases Law 12 tells you what adjustment to make. You determine what equity is, and then you adjust the score to reflect that. If you think declarer would have made 100% of the time, your suggested ruling is correct; otherwise it's not.

 

The hesitator's intention is relevant only for two purposes:

- Applying a procedural or disciplinary penalty for an intentional breach of the rules, independent of the adjustment to restore equity.

- Making an illegal Pran-style ruling, where the adjusted score is a function of the offender's intent.

[gordontd]

1) No one but a rank beginner would hesitate here with Q8x or Q87x

2) Therefore, hesitating with a small singleton would work to East's benefit only if declarer runs the 10 as a double shot, and the TD/AC decline to adjust.

3) Therefore East could not reasonably suppose that hesitating with a singleton would, in expectation, improve his score

4) Therefore we should not rule against him under 73F

5) Therefore I would let the table result stand

 

Anyone agree with me?

No. I don't know which requirement of Law 73F you think does not apply.

 

He has violated Law 73D by not being "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side".

It has resulted in damage to his innocent opponent.

He has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action (hesitation & shrug).

His innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from it.

He could have known that the action could work to his benefit.

[nige1]

"Popular and generally applicable?" Where do you get this stuff, Nigel?

From the IBLF forum, where L23 is cited in many ruling discussions :) e.g. here

[sNIP] He could have known that the action could work to his benefit.

[nigel_k]

No. I don't know which requirement of Law 73F you think does not apply.

 

He has violated Law 73D by not being "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side".

It has resulted in damage to his innocent opponent.

He has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action (hesitation & shrug).

His innocent opponent has drawn a false inference from it.

He could have known that the action could work to his benefit.

I agree with aardv. There is no reason for anyone to play the queen from Qx or Qxx here. It's quite different from a situation where declarer leads the J from AJ109 towards Kxxxx in dummy.

 

So there is no damage resulting from East's action. Declarer made the wrong choice in the club suit but East's actions didn't make that choice any more likely to succeed.

[campboy]

While there is little reason to hesitate with Qxx, it should be obvious that there is even less reason to hesitate with x. East's pause makes it certain declarer will go wrong because the one holding it eliminates is the one he actually has.

[RMB1]

While there is little reason to hesitate with Qxx, it should be obvious that there is even less reason to hesitate with x.

 

and East could know that people will hesitate with the queen because in some situations it is right to cover an honour with an honour even if this is not such a situation, and some players will take time to recognise what the position is.

[gordontd]

From the IBLF forum, where L23 is cited in many ruling discussions :) e.g. here

I was citing Law 73F.

[WellSpyder]

You can ask South how they were going to play, but don't be surprised if they swear they were going to take whichever line would have been successful on the actual layout of the cards.

 

What do you really think would have happened if East had played low smoothly? Unless South thinks they're playing against beginners who would think about covering the ten, they're on a complete guess here, and would be quite likely to play for the drop, or even run the ten if they were betting on East's inability to underplay the queen without a hitch. The more I think about it, the more I think that giving them even as much as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous.

I was dummy on this hand, so I can't be sure what South was going to play, but would be reasonably confident in my assessment that neither was he (and that that is what he would say if asked by the TD). I would also be reasonably confident that he was indeed hoping to learn something from East's tempo (and that that is why he couldn't yet say what his plan was) - East was very far from a beginner, but also not an expert. A typical club player of several decades' standing, perhaps.

 

But I don't understand your suggestion that a declarer hoping to learn something from East's inability to underplay the queen without a hitch might decide to run the ten if East had played low smoothly. Isn't that completely contradictory?

[lamford]

The more I think about it, the more I think that giving them even as much as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous.

Then I suggest you should not continue to think about it, or you will wrongly be awarding declarer something like 33% of 6♣=. At the point at which declarer would have had the critical guess, he would have known that West had 11 vacant places for the queen of clubs, and East 12, which narrowly suggests playing for the drop. However, to make the contract, he needs East to have the king of hearts, so there are exactly 11 vacant places for each player. He would be wrong to change the vacant places calculation for the lead of the ace of diamonds, as East also produced a diamond, and the distribution of the diamond suit is not known. So, declarer is choosing between two lines that are theoretically equal - playing West for Qxx or xx in clubs. Given that a player will surely try to cash an ace slightly more often when looking at a potential trump trick, I think that running the jack on the second round is marginally correct, so your assessment of the above figures is way out. The more I think about it, the more I think that giving declarer as little as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous to the offenders, and I now think 75% of 6♣= is about right. And maybe pran is right for all the wrong reasons!

[VixTD]

But I don't understand your suggestion that a declarer hoping to learn something from East's inability to underplay the queen without a hitch might decide to run the ten if East had played low smoothly. Isn't that completely contradictory?

I was aware of a possible contradiction here when I wrote this, but I'm not sure it is completely contradictory. He might not have decided what to do if East fumbled a little over the ♣10. After all, not all fumbles are equal. Leading the ♣10 at least leaves all options open.

 

I played this hand recently in a Dawes match (teams-of-eight):

[hv=pc=n&w=saqt54hqj64da7ca4&e=skj8ha8dkq53ckqt]266|100[/hv]

I was in 6♠ as West, on a club lead. I could either take the heart finesse or play for a red-suit squeeze for the overtrick. The finesse has slightly better odds, but I wanted to leave both options open. I drew trumps and led ♥Q. When North fumbled perceptibly I stuck with my idea of running the queen, and lost a trick. It was an action that could have been a brief pause for thought, or also just an attempt to extract a sticky card. It wasn't enough to make a fuss about. Had he played low smoothly, I still don't know what I would have done.

 

Another player in our county third team overbid to 7NT and took the same line of play. North played low in tempo and the squeeze worked. I might not have been so sanguine had I been in a grand slam.

[VixTD]

Then I suggest you should not continue to think about it, or you will wrongly be awarding declarer something like 33% of 6♣=. At the point at which declarer would have had the critical guess, he would have known that West had 11 vacant places for the queen of clubs, and East 12, which narrowly suggests playing for the drop. However, to make the contract, he needs East to have the king of hearts, so there are exactly 11 vacant places for each player. He would be wrong to change the vacant places calculation for the lead of the ace of diamonds, as East also produced a diamond, and the distribution of the diamond suit is not known. So, declarer is choosing between two lines that are theoretically equal - playing West for Qxx or xx in clubs. Given that a player will surely try to cash an ace slightly more often when looking at a potential trump trick, I think that running the jack on the second round is marginally correct, so your assessment of the above figures is way out. The more I think about it, the more I think that giving declarer as little as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous to the offenders, and I now think 75% of 6♣= is about right. And maybe pran is right for all the wrong reasons!

Actually, about 30% of 6♣= was the proportion I had in mind, but that's not the main point of my argument. I have said clearly that Sven (and therefore you, by the reasoning you give above) would be correct to award all or most of 6♣= if you think that declarer is likely to have made the contract all or most of the time had East played low in tempo. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

 

I'm not the only one who thinks that he is unlikely to make his contact if East doesn't hesitate, but I'm quite prepared to be persuaded otherwise. That's why directors consult other players.

 

Do you not think it's a valid counter-argument that a player on lead to a slam with an ace and Qx(x) in trumps might refrain from leading the ace in order not to give declarer a clue as to how to play the trump suit? (Particularly if the ace is unlikely to go away.)

[Aardv]

I don't agree with the implication that, for the class of player we seem to be talking about, a hesitation is more likely with the queen than without it. Even if perfectly ethical, this sort of player is better prepared to play a low club when he's got the queen than when he hasn't.

 

That being the case, running the ten after the hesitation is an anti-percentage action which gains in expectation only if the director will come to declarer's aid when he's wrong. And I don't think it's the director's job to improve the score players get from taking anti-percentage actions.

 

Another question: suppose a defender in this position, having hesitated, says that he wasn't thinking about this trick and follows small. Declarer rises with the ace and finesses on the way back, losing to the doubleton queen. Should you adjust under Law 73F?

[gordontd]

Even if perfectly ethical, this sort of player is better prepared to play a low club when he's got the queen than when he hasn't.

Really? And has less of a choice to make when he has three cards than when he has one?

[pran]

[...]

Another question: suppose a defender in this position, having hesitated, says that he wasn't thinking about this trick and follows small. Declarer rises with the ace and finesses on the way back, losing to the doubleton queen. Should you adjust under Law 73F?

 

My general principle is that if a player after hesitating apparently wakes up and immediately excuses "he had nothing to think about" then the hesitation should be considered unintentional so that Law 73D1 applies: Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

[lamford]

Do you not think it's a valid counter-argument that a player on lead to a slam with an ace and Qx(x) in trumps might refrain from leading the ace in order not to give declarer a clue as to how to play the trump suit? (Particularly if the ace is unlikely to go away.)

It is indeed quite possible that a player might think that leading the ace might give the game away. Game theory therefore indicates that he should lead an ace half the time with Qxx in trumps and half the time with xx in trumps, except that with the latter he would not know that his partner might have Qx in trumps. In the example in question, declarer has very little to go on, but having started the suit by leading the ten, he would be a slight favourite to get the suit right without the hitch. My experience of ATxx opposite KJ9x(x) is that a good declarer gets this suit right far more than half the time. Sometimes the opponent hitches because he does not know whether the layout is ATxx opposite J8xx when failing to cover the jack is a disaster, and this makes the slightly worse line with this suit combination best. The declarer must be allowed to discern the layout from the opposing tempo more than half the time, as otherwise it is a licence to cheat for the opponents. Your 30% is not in the ball-park given that declarer is exactly 50% against God and God who defend in perfect tempo, because the need to place the king of hearts with East has made the odds 11/22 v 11/22. If he had started the suit by leading the jack, then I would not given him very much of the contract if West hitched with a small singleton, as the damage was negligible as he was never getting the suit right. I have surveyed a couple of very strong players and they both get the suit right when

a) the ace is led, and

b) both player play low in tempo in trumps

although I had no auction to give them

 

And I don't think declarer would have made the contract all or most of the time, unless the latter means "more than half the time". I started at 50% and have moved to around 75% after reconsidering my inept initial analysis.

[lamford]

My initial thought is that everyone is being overly generous to declarer in giving him a large percentage of making the contract. Leading an ace against an unimpressive sequence is quite normal and I doubt that it conveys significant information about the trump break.

Did you think about the fact that to make the contract you needed East to have the king of hearts? Did you consider the fact that the opening lead has suggested that West does not have QJ9, QJT, JT9 or JT8 in spades?

[Aardv]

Really? And has less of a choice to make when he has three cards than when he has one?

"A typical club player of several decades' standing" is not thinking about which club to play in this position, whatever his holding.

 

My general principle is that if a player after hesitating apparently wakes up and immediately excuses "he had nothing to think about" then the hesitation should be considered unintentional so that Law 73D1 applies: Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

That's convenient, but it's not what 73D1 says. "...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." If hesitating with Qx then saying you had nothing to think about might work to your benefit, then the "otherwise" clause does not apply.