Mitigating circumstances?

[Jinksy]

As near as I can remember it, here's a blow-by-blow account something that left a bad taste in my mouth the other week (heavily editorialised, but the sensation of all this is sort of the point):

 

I lead to trick one, declarer calls for a card from dummy, and partner follows.

Declarer puts a card from her hand on the table briefly, and flicks it over (IIRC dummy had won with the A), all others flick theirs over.

She calls for a card from dummy, which dummy plays accordingly.

I still have my card face up on the table, and say that I'd like to see her first card properly before anything happens at trick 2.

She tuts, flicks it face up, dummy flicks hers face up, then within a second they put them both face down again.

I insist that I want time to absorb all the cards, she gives another note of complaint and turns them back face up. While I'm still thinking about them (feeling somewhat distracted already by having to fight so hard for this), she asks sharply if that's enough, and I give up, not really feeling content, turning my card over.

Dummy's second card doesn't move, my partner and declarer play a card each (IIRC declarer's a discard), I discard too.

Declarer continues the second suit, and halfway through the trick I realise I've revoked.

 

The director is called, and to no-one's shock, we're penalised by a trick (quite an expensive MP trick, though presumably that's legally irrelevant).

 

I felt really pissed off about this afterwards (not by the director, since I'd said nothing at the time), thinking that my revoke was a direct result of their pushiness (I will say they weren't belligerent - just pushy), but figured that after I turned my card over I lost any right to link the two.

 

But with time to look back, I wonder - in many circumstances we have strict laws protecting people from being pressured into 'voluntarily' relinquishing their rights. Does bridge have anything similar that would apply here (or in similar cases if not this exact one)?

[VixTD]

This happens to me all the time (not the revoke, but the repeated flicking the cards over and back again, and asking if it's OK to continue), all of which interrupts my train of thought and further delays the play. I find most good tournament players are understanding and wait patiently, but a lot of club players don't understand that anyone can need to spend time at trick one doing anything more than registering which cards have been played to the trick. They're usually trying to be helpful rather than nasty, in my experience, but they end up irritating me nonetheless.

 

I have sometimes tried asking the other players politely if they would leave the cards face-up until I was ready, but some players still cannot understand that I mean I need to think for more than a couple of seconds.

 

There is a law which prevents a player from quitting the trick until all four cards have been played:

45G: No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick.

but (unfortunately) no law that explicitly stops a player from leading to the next trick until the current trick has been quitted.

 

The right to review the trick expires when your side plays to the next trick:

66A: So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.

so I've had to train my partners (who are often no more patient with me than the opponents) not to play to the next trick until I've turned my card over.

 

If I were called as TD in the situation you describe I would insist that your opponents allow you as much time as you need (within reason, so long as it doesn't extend to several minutes' thinking over the course of a hand), particularly at trick one. If necessary I would cite sections of the laws on conduct and etiquette:

74A2: A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

 

74C: The following are examples of violations of procedure: 7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

[mgoetze]

Nope. There are no mitigating circumstances in bridge. I've been ruled against for hesitating after my RHO blatantly ignored a stop card and instapassed my partner's jump bid. It's a war out there on the streets.

[RMB1]

I've been ruled against for hesitating after my RHO blatantly ignored a stop card and instapassed my partner's jump bid. It's a war out there on the streets.

 

In England, if partner uses the stop card and the next player calls immediately you get "10 seconds" (until partner quits the stop card) + "normal tempo" to call.

[axman]

This happens to me all the time (not the revoke, but the repeated flicking the cards over and back again, and asking if it's OK to continue), all of which interrupts my train of thought and further delays the play. I find most good tournament players are understanding and wait patiently, but a lot of club players don't understand that anyone can need to spend time at trick one doing anything more than registering which cards have been played to the trick. They're usually trying to be helpful rather than nasty, in my experience, but they end up irritating me nonetheless.

 

I have sometimes tried asking the other players politely if they would leave the cards face-up until I was ready, but some players still cannot understand that I mean I need to think for more than a couple of seconds.

 

There is a law which prevents a player from quitting the trick until all four cards have been played:

 

but (unfortunately) no law that explicitly stops a player from leading to the next trick until the current trick has been quitted.

 

The right to review the trick expires when your side plays to the next trick:

 

so I've had to train my partners (who are often no more patient with me than the opponents) not to play to the next trick until I've turned my card over.

 

If I were called as TD in the situation you describe I would insist that your opponents allow you as much time as you need (within reason, so long as it doesn't extend to several minutes' thinking over the course of a hand), particularly at trick one. If necessary I would cite sections of the laws on conduct and etiquette:

 

Notably, the law requires insta-quitting:

 

L65A. Completed Trick

 

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

[nige1]

The Italians lost a Bermuda Bowl because of a ruling in a case where a North American defender led to the next trick while there was still a faced card from the previous trick in dummy. Commenting in BLML at the time, I argued that such practices should be illegal. Anyway, I felt that the director might have treated the premature lead as a form of harassment. As Vixtd points out, then as now, there seem to be many laws that might apply (e.g. 5th card played to a trick) but no law that clearly deals with it. Anyway, in that (complicated) high-profile case, the director and appeal committee ruled in favour of the North Americans.

 

I agree with Jinksy that the rule should be that you mustn't lead to the next trick until all players have turned over their cards from the current trick (unless you're making a claim).

[pran]

Notably, the law requires insta-quitting:

 

L65A. Completed Trick

 

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

No "immediately" (or other words to this effect) appears in my version of Law 65.

 

A player is free to maintain his played card face up for as long as he needs (within reason) to absorb what cards were played to the trick.

[aguahombre]

Technically, I think there is a "path" in the Laws to get you there in this case. But, it won't happen.

 

1) 74C Provides Examples, but does not claim to be exclusive.

2) "For the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" is used in one example (7).

3) Therefore the action by Declarer could be ruled as an action contra to your enjoyment of the game and also for the purpose of disconcerting you.

4) Then, the TD could move to L23 and decide Declarer could have known that disconcerting you might well have led to his favorable result (for instance, your revoke).

5) The TD, would be able to rectify under L23 to the most likely result without the revoke.

 

But, in reality, Mgoetze is correct. The simple answer is NO.

[aguahombre]

Notably, the law requires insta-quitting:

 

L65A. Completed Trick

 

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

L65A is one of those which describes a routine in the bidding or play, but doesn't use "shall", "must", "may", "should", or somesuch. I wouldn't use that section for any purpose other than defining a completed trick and explaining where the cards of that trick are then located.

[axman]

L65A is one of those which describes a routine in the bidding or play, but doesn't use "shall", "must", "may", "should", or somesuch. I wouldn't use that section for any purpose other than defining a completed trick and explaining where the cards of that trick are then located.

 

Perhaps a more accurate way is to say that the law makes it an infraction [failure to follow procedure] to not insta-quit when four cards have been played to a trick. I see nothing in 65A that defines what a completed trick is, but I do see where it says what is to be done when a specified occurrence happens.

[barmar]

Technically, I think there is a "path" in the Laws to get you there in this case. But, it won't happen.

 

1) 74C Provides Examples, but does not claim to be exclusive.

2) "For the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" is used in one example (7).

3) Therefore the action by Declarer could be ruled as an action contra to your enjoyment of the game and also for the purpose of disconcerting you.

While he could rule that this was the purpose, in most cases he shouldn't. It's far more likely that the purpose was to just get on with the game, not to bother the opponent. He could just as easily claim that repeated requests to face his card were disconcerting him.

[Jinksy]

And would that ever be considered sufficient to overrule such a penalty?

[RMB1]

And would that ever be considered sufficient to overrule such a penalty?

 

I don't think so, no.

 

If you get frustrated by the opponents, you need to call the TD, get the opponents to give you the information/time you need.

When all the disputative stuff is over, you need to re-focus, concentrate and get on with the game.

(I am not pretending this is easy.)

 

Opponents antics may be worthy of some sort of penalty but there is no legal route for an adjusted score or waiving of penalty because opponent's behaviour lead to a mechanical error.

[Trinidad]

Perhaps a more accurate way is to say that the law makes it an infraction [failure to follow procedure] to not insta-quit when four cards have been played to a trick.

Sorry, but the "insta" part is bogus. Law 65 simply defines how to arrange (won/lost) tricks. It says nothing whatsoever about how fast this needs to be done. The only thing it says "on the side" is that there is an order of things: First everybody plays a card (A), then the trick is quitted (B). It doesn't mention how much time there is between A and B (except that this time is not allowed to be negative ;) ).

 

LAW 65 - ARRANGEMENT OF TRICKS

A. Completed Trick

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

And would that ever be considered sufficient to overrule such a penalty?

There was no "penalty" mentioned in my path to adjudication; it was a hypothetical way to obtain equity negating the revoke penalty. As I said, I won't happen, though.

[blackshoe]

It won't happen at clubs because most club directors either don't know the law well enough to apply it that way, or are unwilling to apply it that way, or both.

 

Jinksy, I think you gave up too easily. I'm not suggesting you should argue with them, but if what they're doing is interfering with your thinking about the hand, just call the director.

 

The case where partner makes a skip bid and RHO insta-passes is just like any other BIT case, except that RHO's tempo is mandated by regulation. In such cases, you first "reserve your right" to call the director later, and if they disagree there was a BIT, they are supposed to call the director. When they don't (they won't) call him yourself and report their failure to follow the law, and the circumstances. After the director has ruled, insist on your right to think about the hand. The director should stay at the table until you're ready to continue (longer if he senses there may still be a problem.

[Jinksy]

I don't think so, no.

 

If you get frustrated by the opponents, you need to call the TD, get the opponents to give you the information/time you need.

When all the disputative stuff is over, you need to re-focus, concentrate and get on with the game.

(I am not pretending this is easy.)

 

Opponents antics may be worthy of some sort of penalty but there is no legal route for an adjusted score or waiving of penalty because opponent's behaviour lead to a mechanical error.

 

This doesn't surprise me, but I think it's a shame. It heavily penalises players new or unused to organised play for not having a good sense of what their rights are and how much - socially as well as legally speaking - one can realistically insist on them.

 

(Obviously if they did have such rights they still wouldn't know them, but frequent offenders might, and so might tread more carefully, in case someone else is listening)

[axman]

No "immediately" (or other words to this effect) appears in my version of Law 65.

 

A player is free to maintain his played card face up for as long as he needs (within reason) to absorb what cards were played to the trick.

 

The law specifies the procedure.

 

The law specifies the point in time for quitting cards. What is that point in time? "When four cards have been played to a trick". If the specification were 'after four cards have been played to a trick' it would permit some lapse of time [though it too would be a dubious law]. As such, the law specifies 'insta-quitting'.

[Vampyr]

The law specifies the procedure.

 

The law specifies the point in time for quitting cards. What is that point in time? "When four cards have been played to a trick". If the specification were 'after four cards have been played to a trick' it would permit some lapse of time [though it too would be a dubious law]. As such, the law specifies 'insta-quitting'.

 

So how do you reconcile this with 66A?

[blackshoe]

The law specifies the procedure.

 

The law specifies the point in time for quitting cards. What is that point in time? "When four cards have been played to a trick". If the specification were 'after four cards have been played to a trick' it would permit some lapse of time [though it too would be a dubious law]. As such, the law specifies 'insta-quitting'.

I don't think "when" is that specific.

[aguahombre]

So how do you reconcile this with 66A?

Great point. You cannot reconcile "insta"-anything with "so long as", "until", and words to that effect as in 66A.

[axman]

Great point. You cannot reconcile "insta"-anything with "so long as", "until", and words to that effect as in 66A.

 

I'm not inclined to reconcile. But, two things occur to me:

 

1] when four cards have been played to a trick and someone doesn't then quit his card- it is an infraction.

 

2] if a player wants to see the other cards once four cards have been played to a trick and he does not want to commit an infraction, well maybe [but it might well be an infraction] he would ask prior to [all] four cards being played.

 

Ok, I didn't write that law; but those things did occur to me.

[chrism]

To see that "when" does not necessarily imply "instantly after", compare Law 41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down.

 

Would anyone seriously argue that it is an infraction of this law for a defender to think after the final pass before selecting a lead? Or is there a material difference between the "after" in this law and the "when" in 65A?

[Vampyr]

I'm not inclined to reconcile.

 

Quite so; it is a much better strategy to simply ignore the fact that there is a Law that directly contradicts what you are saying.

 

Please tell me where you direct so that I can avoid playing there.

[aguahombre]

I'm not inclined to reconcile. But, two things occur to me:

 

1] when four cards have been played to a trick and someone doesn't then quit his card- it is an infraction.

 

2] if a player wants to see the other cards once four cards have been played to a trick and he does not want to commit an infraction, well maybe [but it might well be an infraction] he would ask prior to [all] four cards being played.

 

Ok, I didn't write that law; but those things did occur to me.

Two fewer things should occur to you.