Is this a suitable case for a weighted ruling?

[pran]

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.

 

Consider a hypothetical, but quite possible situation: A player has simply fallen asleep (genuinly) and some 15 seconds after it becomes his turn to play suddenly wakes up and plays. Do you really use Law 73D2/F on him?

 

Now, instead of falling asleep he (for whatever reason, he may for instance have a mental defect) is simply absent-minded and similarly "wakes up" after 15 Seconds. Do you use Law 73D2/F on him?

 

I seriously believe that we should be very careful with Law 73D2/F when there is every reason to trust that the hesitation was unintended.

[Trinidad]

If a player falls asleep, then there are two possibilities:

 

• 
   
  
• Everyone sees that he is sleeping and it is clear that he isn't thinking, so no need to do anything.
  
• It is not clear that he fell asleep and then the hesitation can work to the sleeper's benefit. Falling asleep is not "being particularly careful" and we may well rule against the sleeper if we think that his power nap misled an opponent.
  

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

If the game of bridge is such that players, particularly in these days of an aging demographic, can't make little mistakes like falling asleep or losing concentration, without having "could have known" thrown at them, then those players will quit playing. Is that what we want?

[pran]

If the game of bridge is such that players, particularly in these days of an aging demographic, can't make little mistakes like falling asleep or losing concentration, without having "could have known" thrown at them, then those players will quit playing. Is that what we want?

 

I think it - you said it !

[barmar]

Is that what we want?

Sorry, I got distracted. What was the question?

[mycroft]

Cute, BarMar.

 

Seriously, though, as I've said earlier today, it's a matter of education. Repeated, regular, "expected" education. And we don't do that.

[PhilKing]

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,

 

Take care when pronouncing on game theory.

 

Say I lead the ace 100% of the time, regardless of my trump holding. If declarer plays me for the trump queen I therefore win half the time - the same as your GTO strategy. The same applies if I never lead the ace.

 

But the truth is you should not use game theory against someone you can out-think. Most GTO strategies are a stand-off, so there is little point trying to use them. Against someone from the "they must have the queen" school, just lead passively when you have the trump queen and bang down the ace when you don't. Yes, that means I lose 100% of the time if declarer reads my strategy, but we should strive to beat GTO - not to achieve parity.

 

Besides, by trying to achieve GTO, we lose on hands where it was simply right lead an ace, and in truth, I am from the "your auction sucks, so I am banging down an ace" school.

[jallerton]

Cant we give a split score with 100% of 12 tricks for EW, and some weighted score for NS?

 

It would be nice if the Law allowed us to do this, but I don't think it does. Law 12C1C states that "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". It's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores.

 

Sure, adjusted scores need not balance (Law 12C1f).

 

Whilst Law 12C1f does say that, it is just an observation. Law 12C1f does not tell us how to assign the score; see higher up in Law 12C1 for that.

[jallerton]

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.

 

I disagree. ♦A is not in the same category as the subset of small diamonds. If West always leads an ace when he has one, then this card takes up one of West's vacants places, just as (as you correctly point out) ♥K inferentially takes up one of East's. There may also be inferences from the aucion (even if E/W passed throughout).

 

However, the reasoning you or I might have applied in this situation is not necessarily relevant. What the TD has to try to judge (and it is not easy) is what line of reasoning the declarer at the table would/might have taken. Often this sort of case is easier to rule in ACBL-land: then the TD only has to decide whether it is (i) at all probable; and/or (ii) likely that declarer would have found ♣Q had the irregularity not occurred.

[Aardv]

If the game of bridge is such that players, particularly in these days of an aging demographic, can't make little mistakes like falling asleep or losing concentration, without having "could have known" thrown at them, then those players will quit playing. Is that what we want?

It's not what I want.

 

I want the law and its interpretation to achieve two things:

 

1) If I can give a defender a genuine problem when he's got some honour holding, I should be able to interpret his hesitation without having to consider the possibility that he's hesitated deceptively with no honour in the suit.

 

2) Otherwise, daydreaming defenders should not be penalized by the laws for their inattention.

 

The interpretation popular on this thread seems to do neither of these things. If the magic formula "I wasn't thinking about this trick" automatically avoids penalty under 73F, then a player who has considered whether to cover a J with Qxx can use it to conceal his holding, and to make that work he can hesitate then use the formula sometimes with xx also. On the other hand, you want to penalize a player for forgetting or not knowing the magic words after he's hesitated in a position where he can't possibly have a problem whatever his holding.

[blackshoe]

If a player habitually hesitates to deceive, I trust that sooner or later he'll be found out, and that when that happens he'll have the book thrown at him.

 

As to what I want, I want players to understand their ethical obligations. Generally speaking, I trust that players who do understand them will not hesitate to deceive, so if an educated (as to the ethics of this situation) player does hesitate, your item 2 will come into play. You seem to take the opposite view - that if a player hesitates when you're specifically trying to get a read on something, he's cheating. That, unfortunately, is the attitude of many players, especially when they take a wrong view and lose a trick - and perhaps the contract. To me, that's just wrong.

 

It boils down to this: we need to make sure our players are educated as to the ethics of the game. That, IMO, is where clubs fall down.

[pran]

(Cant we give a split score with 100% of 12 tricks for EW, and some weighted score for NS?)

It would be nice if the Law allowed us to do this, but I don't think it does. Law 12C1C states that "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". It's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores.

 

Nothing in Law 12 prevents the Director from applying different weights for the two sides when assigning weighted scores. In fact I have noticed just that having been done in some cases. (But the weights must of course be varied for a reason, the Director may not just assign arbitrarily weighted scores.)

[blackshoe]

jallerton says "it's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores". Sven Pran replies "Nothing in Law 12 prevents the Director from applying different weights for the two sides". Sven, that doesn't really address Jeffrey's point. It may be true that nothing specifically prevents it, but that doesn't make doing it inconsistent with Law 12C1{c}. Also, the fact that you've seen different weightings in some cases doesn't make that a correct approach. Perhaps whoever issued those rulings made a mistake.

 

FWIW, I agree with Jeffrey — in weighting the scores, the goal is to arrive at the best estimate of average equity around the table according to "the probabilities of a number of potential results". I don't see how it's possible to fit different weightings for different sides into that goal.

[gordontd]

f the magic formula "I wasn't thinking about this trick" automatically avoids penalty under 73F, then a player who has considered whether to cover a J with Qxx can use it to conceal his holding, and to make that work he can hesitate then use the formula sometimes with xx also.

I can see how you've been given that impression by one poster here, but I don't think that's true.

[Trinidad]

If the game of bridge is such that players, particularly in these days of an aging demographic, can't make little mistakes like falling asleep or losing concentration, without having "could have known" thrown at them, then those players will quit playing. Is that what we want?

That, of course, is the wrong question. The right question is whether we require the aging demographic to follow bridge laws. The answer is "yes". If the consequence of that is that they quit bridge that is unfortunate, but not a reason to let them play by different rules.

 

Rik

[pran]

jallerton says "it's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores". Sven Pran replies "Nothing in Law 12 prevents the Director from applying different weights for the two sides". Sven, that doesn't really address Jeffrey's point. It may be true that nothing specifically prevents it, but that doesn't make doing it inconsistent with Law 12C1{c}. Also, the fact that you've seen different weightings in some cases doesn't make that a correct approach. Perhaps whoever issued those rulings made a mistake.

 

FWIW, I agree with Jeffrey — in weighting the scores, the goal is to arrive at the best estimate of average equity around the table according to "the probabilities of a number of potential results". I don't see how it's possible to fit different weightings for different sides into that goal.

 

I have no problem with the possibility (in special situations) that the estimated probability for a particular line of play is different for the two sides.

[blackshoe]

I have no problem with the possibility (in special situations) that the estimated probability for a particular line of play is different for the two sides.

It's obvious that you don't.

[PeterAlan]

I have no problem with the possibility (in special situations) that the estimated probability for a particular line of play is different for the two sides.

If E/W and N/S are at the same table, then a line of play for one side is also the line of play for the other. What are the circumstances that you have in mind?

[VixTD]

I think the only situations that call for non-balancing scores are those in which both sides are non-offending (e.g. in a case of an error by the TD or other outside agency) in which both sides get the benefit of a generous weighting, and those in which both sides are offending (including where the otherwise innocent party has taken wild or gambling action).

[barmar]

If a player habitually hesitates to deceive, I trust that sooner or later he'll be found out, and that when that happens he'll have the book thrown at him.

 

As to what I want, I want players to understand their ethical obligations. Generally speaking, I trust that players who do understand them will not hesitate to deceive, so if an educated (as to the ethics of this situation) player does hesitate, your item 2 will come into play. You seem to take the opposite view - that if a player hesitates when you're specifically trying to get a read on something, he's cheating. That, unfortunately, is the attitude of many players, especially when they take a wrong view and lose a trick - and perhaps the contract. To me, that's just wrong.

 

It boils down to this: we need to make sure our players are educated as to the ethics of the game. That, IMO, is where clubs fall down.

I'm with you. I like to base my interpretation and application of the Laws on the assumption that most players are honest. If they say "I wasn't thinking about this trick", I usually accept that.

[Aardv]

...Generally speaking, I trust that players who do understand them will not hesitate to deceive...You seem to take the opposite view - that if a player hesitates when you're specifically trying to get a read on something, he's cheating. That, unfortunately, is the attitude of many players, especially when they take a wrong view and lose a trick - and perhaps the contract. To me, that's just wrong.

So why do you want to penalize a player who hesitates in a position, as in the hand at the top of this thread, where he can't possibly be thinking about which card to play? By all means offer the defender advice on his ethical obligations, if you think he needs it, but why use the Laws to reward declarer for having picked up this essentially meaningless hesitation?

[blackshoe]

So why do you want to penalize a player who hesitates in a position, as in the hand at the top of this thread, where he can't possibly be thinking about which card to play? By all means offer the defender advice on his ethical obligations, if you think he needs it, but why use the Laws to reward declarer for having picked up this essentially meaningless hesitation?

Nowhere in this thread have I said anything at all like that.

 

I don't use the laws to "reward" anybody. I rectify irregularities, and may sometimes issue procedural or disciplinary penalties.