Nat Pairs 6 - hesitation in the play

[blackshoe]

Acceptance of an insufficient bid is not a rectification.

[aguahombre]

Acceptance of an insufficient bid is not a rectification.

This is the key. A right is not a rectification, and to deny an opponent a bit of time to consider whether to exercise that right is wrong.

[pran]

I don't see the relevance of introducing insufficient bids in this thread.

 

However, anything else than accepting the lead out of turn is a rectification and if the offender's LHO needs time to decide whether or not to accept a lead out of turn he had better make that clear and not just hesitate his play of a singleton.

 

I am tired of all the excuses that have been introduced on behalf of a player who apparently has violated Law 73D2 by a significant hesitation before playing his singleton in the suit led (except of course during trick 1).

 

If I were to be called to a table where this had happened and had been offered any of the inventive excuses presented here I would have smiled and asked if he could not do better than that. Then I would go on investigating if the hesitation in my opinion had damaged opponents.

 

I am not interested in whether he intended to mislead his opponents, the fact is that he most likely did.

 

 

Many years ago I read a story where a declarer's LHO hesitated before following suit with a small card. Declarer naturally tried the finnessee in Dummy with success. The player then astonished asked his partner (RHO) why he didn't win the trick with his key card. RHO (who indeed had that card) replied: "Oh, I was sure you had it!"

[blackshoe]

I don't see the relevance of introducing insufficient bids in this thread.

 

However, anything else than accepting the lead out of turn is a rectification and if the offender's LHO needs time to decide whether or not to accept a lead out of turn he had better make that clear and not just hesitate his play of a singleton.

 

I am tired of all the excuses that have been introduced on behalf of a player who apparently has violated Law 73D2 by a significant hesitation before playing his singleton in the suit led (except of course during trick 1).

 

If I were to be called to a table where this had happened and had been offered any of the inventive excuses presented here I would have smiled and asked if he could not do better than that. Then I would go on investigating if the hesitation in my opinion had damaged opponents.

 

I am not interested in whether he intended to mislead his opponents, the fact is that he most likely did.

 

 

Many years ago I read a story where a declarer's LHO hesitated before following suit with a small card. Declarer naturally tried the finnessee in Dummy with success. The player then astonished asked his partner (RHO) why he didn't win the trick with his key card. RHO (who indeed had that card) replied: "Oh, I was sure you had it!"

Heard that story. Kaplan, I think. As for the rest, I would not go into any ruling situation with the preconceived notion that one side or the other has done something wrong. I would not allow being "tired of excuses" to color my ruling. I would investigate, and apply the law. As for the instant case, Law 73D2 says "a player may not attempt to mislead an opponent…" It is clear to me that, singleton or not, the player concerned did not attempt to mislead, and so is not guilty of having violated Law 73D2.

[Trinidad]

However, anything else than accepting the lead out of turn is a rectification and if the offender's LHO needs time to decide whether or not to accept a lead out of turn he had better make that clear..

Why? Is there any law that forces North to tell the table what bridge reason he had to think?

... and not just hesitate his play of a singleton.

You don't have any evidence that North hesitated his play of a singleton, so please stop saying he did. He thought what to do about the LOOT.

 

His excellent bridge reasons, as I have said before, are that he needs to choose whether he would:

• treat the LOOT as a correct lead
  
• wait for his partner to decide something
  
• call the TD
  

 

You make it perfectly clear that in addition to these, North probably needs some time to reflect on what his rights and obligations are. I mean, if the BBF laws forum members cannot agree on what North's rights and obligations are, then how is North supposed to know that in a fraction of a second?

 

Seen in this light, it seems like a miracle that North was able to make his decisions within a few seconds, rather than a few days of internet discussion.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I am not interested in whether he intended to mislead his opponents, the fact is that he most likely did.

You have quoted law 73D2 a few times, but you fail to read it.

 

Of course, West was misled. Everybody here believes West's claim that North's short pause misled him into believing that North could not have a singleton queen. (Because everybody recognizes that West failed to realize that his LOOT caused the pause.)

 

But whether West was misled is utterly irrelevant.

 

What is relevant is whether North attempted to mislead West. And there is zero evidence for that because North had good bridge reasons to think.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

FWIW I've had almost exactly this situation when playing against a member of the WBFLC, and I did exactly as North did - I thought about whether to accept the lead, decided I did want to, and then followed suit with my singleton. The WBFLC member thought that was fine.

[pran]

You have quoted law 73D2 a few times, but you fail to read it.

 

Of course, West was misled. Everybody here believes West's claim that North's short pause misled him into believing that North could not have a singleton queen. (Because everybody recognizes that West failed to realize that his LOOT caused the pause.)

 

But whether West was misled is utterly irrelevant.

 

What is relevant is whether North attempted to mislead West. And there is zero evidence for that because North had good bridge reasons to think.

 

Rik

We apparently live in different cultures as to what we consider fair play and gentlemanlike behaviour. (And the laws stress the importance of behaving like Gentlemen/Ladies.)

 

Let me give you another BIT example from TD Candidates training commonly used for years in Norway.

 

Declarer leads towards a tenace in Dummy and his LHO hesitates with just two small Cards (doubleton).

 

His "excuse" afterwards is that he was considering whether to give a true or a false (odd/even) count signal with his discard.

 

LHO shall never be heard with this "excuse" because he shall be aware in advance that his hesitation will most likely mislead Declarer! (He should foresee the situation and make up his mind well before so that he could discard in normal tempo.)

[Trinidad]

We apparently live in different cultures as to what we consider fair play and gentlemanlike behaviour. (And the laws stress the importance of behaving like Gentlemen/Ladies.)

 

Let me give you another BIT example from TD Candidates training commonly used for years in Norway.

 

Declarer leads towards a tenace in Dummy and his LHO hesitates with just two small Cards (doubleton).

 

His "excuse" afterwards is that he was considering whether to give a true or a false (odd/even) count signal with his discard.

 

LHO shall never be heard with this "excuse" because he shall be aware in advance that his hesitation will most likely mislead Declarer! (He should foresee the situation and make up his mind well before so that he could discard in normal tempo.)

 

Please refrain from references to gentleman like behavior. It is so ... ungentlemanly.

 

To answer your question: This is a standard example. The hesitation with a small doubleton is considered an attempt to mislead.

 

Why?

 

Because any player with a tiny bit of experience will know in a fraction of a second (and probably already before the opponent led to the trick) which of the two cards he should play. So, having to decide which of the two small cards to play is not a valid bridge reason to think. It is a situation that comes up routinely (many times per club night) and will not truly present any difficulty.

 

Look how big the difference with this situation is:

• 
   
  
• Something unexpected happens. North needs to make a decision half a trick earlier than he expected.
  
• North ends up in a non-routine situation.
  
• North does have a genuine decision to make. He is suddenly presented with an array of new options.
  
• His choice is not between two trivial options (play the 6 or the 2), he has several options. In some options, he will have additional options after he has chosen his initial option.
  
• In fact, North might already need time to realize how many options he actually has!
  
• He needs to realize his legal obligations and his legal opportunities.
  
• Finally, he needs to answer the question: "What am I going to do?"
  

 

In your small doubleton example, the player doesn't have a genuine decision to make. He has no valid bridge reason to think.

In the actual case, North does have a genuine (and, I must say, pretty complex) decision to make. That is a very valid bridge reason to think.

 

Let me ask you three simple questions:

You are defending. You won your own opening lead. You think for a while and decide to continue the suit. As expected, this is ruffed in dummy.

Declarer leads a small heart from his hand.

 

1. 
    
   
2. What are your options?
   
3. Which one do you choose?
   
4. How much time does it take you to answer questions 1 and 2?
   

 

I would think that the sum (your answer to question 3 + the time you need to realize that declarer led from the wrong hand) is at least "a few seconds". This is the time North needed, not time that he hesitated.

 

Rik

[pran]

[..]

Let me ask you three simple questions:

You are defending. You won your own opening lead. You think for a while and decide to continue the suit. As expected, this is ruffed in dummy.

Declarer leads a small heart from his hand.

 

1. 
    
   
2. What are your options?
   
3. Which one do you choose?
   
4. How much time does it take you to answer questions 1 and 2?
   

 

I would think that the sum (your answer to question 3 + the time you need to realize that declarer led from the wrong hand) is at least "a few seconds". This is the time North needed, not time that he hesitated.

 

Rik

I have been in this or equivalent situations several times and can truly answer that my split second reaction is "You are in Dummy".

[Trinidad]

I have been in this or equivalent situations several times and can truly answer that my split second reaction is "You are in Dummy".

You may consider it good bridge to simply reject all the other options that you have on autopilot. To me it is equivalent to always following suit with your highest card: You can do that in a split second, but it doesn't have anything to do with good bridge.

 

Most other players would like to consider ways to take advantage of the extra options that they are offered. This is entirely legal (Law 10C3) and there is nothing unethical about that. The, probably for you unexpected, consequence of this is that there is nothing particularly ethical or commendable about your refusal to use the LOOT to your advantage. (Nor is it unethical.)

 

Considering other options than the one you choose on autopilot will take some time. That is a bridge reason for thinking a few seconds which means that North did not commit any irregularity. And that should be the end of this entertaining story.

 

Rik

[RSliwinski]

Maybe it is beside the point but would not North ensure the trick for partner's jack of hearts if he called the TD? If North calls TD and does not accept the LOOT and the declarer then chooses to enter his hand and plays a heart through North and later finesse or plays an honor from the dummy and then finesse, North may claim that this play was influenced by his (Norths) non acceptance of the LOOT. After all, if North held Q-x-x in hearts he would (unless it was Sven) gladly accept the LOOT. And if he held Q-J alone he would probably also accept the LOOT and later claim that dropping the jack on the second round was also influenced by his acceptance.

[nige1]

VixTD's ruling seems reasonable. IMO, this is another example, of the endless complications that arise, when law-makers grant players unnecessary options after infractions by their opponents (Here, defenders can condone the LOOT).

 

The same kind of complex mess results from options afforded to players after illegal bids and plays.

 

I'm unsure if there should even be a player-option, whether or not to draw attention to an infraction. Perhaps, it would be better if the law stipulated that you call the director as soon as you're aware of an infraction.

[aguahombre]

I have been in this or equivalent situations several times and can truly answer that my split second reaction is "You are in Dummy".

Is Sven referring to the situation here, where he is the LHO of Declarer AND holds a singleton quack? I change my vote. West could not have been thinking about his option to require the lead to be from dummy, because with that holding he would have exercised the option.

 

Furthermore, Sven's split second reaction "You are in Dummy." is interesting. Would he split-second screw his partner's stiff Queen if he himself held the JXX? We have a can of worms here. Declarer's irregularity could provide him with a "tell".

[pran]

Explicitly related to Declarer's lead from the wrong hand I prefer as defender to prevent him from committing the irregularity rather than to elaborate on how I can best take advantage of the situation.

 

I know that technically I am too late, the irregularity has already been committed once the card is called, but as I know that I am not alone in this comprehension I realize (from among other things this discussion) that we live in different cultures on how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

[blackshoe]

Maybe it is beside the point but would not North ensure the trick for partner's jack of hearts if he called the TD? If North calls TD and does not accept the LOOT and the declarer then chooses to enter his hand and plays a heart through North and later finesse or plays an honor from the dummy and then finesse, North may claim that this play was influenced by his (Norths) non acceptance of the LOOT. After all, if North held Q-x-x in hearts he would (unless it was Sven) gladly accept the LOOT. And if he held Q-J alone he would probably also accept the LOOT and later claim that dropping the jack on the second round was also influenced by his acceptance.

Seems to me that players might claim just about anything — and they often do. Don't care. It's up to the TD to gather the facts — and players' opinions are not facts — and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence he gathers.

[blackshoe]

Explicitly related to Declarer's lead from the wrong hand I prefer as defender to prevent him from committing the irregularity rather than to elaborate on how I can best take advantage of the situation.

 

I know that technically I am too late, the irregularity has already been committed once the card is called, but as I know that I am not alone in this comprehension I realize (from among other things this discussion) that we live in different cultures on how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

Asserting that you take the ethical high road over those who disagree with you is, it seems to me, an implicit admission that you're wrong.

[sanst]

I have been in this or equivalent situations several times and can truly answer that my split second reaction is "You are in Dummy".

I thought you immediatelly called the TD, not making comments like that. And please, don't imply that all who don't agree with you, have other - probably lower - standards than you about how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

 

Joost

[Trinidad]

I realize (from among other things this discussion) that we live in different cultures on how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

As a player, you can play and win using any legal way you prefer. But that is of very little relevance here.

 

As a TD it is your job to apply the laws, not to impose your opinions on how to play and win in bridge. That means that it is simply wrong to adjust the score with the sole argument that North chooses to play and win in bridge in a way different from yours.

 

Our cultures have nothing to do with it. Adjusting the score is wrong in Dutch culture, in American culture, in Inuit culture and it is just as wrong in Norwegian culture. It is wrong for one simple reason: There is no basis for it in the laws.

 

Rik

[pran]

Apparently there is a lot of confusion between my preferred attitude as player and my attitude as director.

 

Referring to the situation described in OP I would as North (if I noticed the irregularity in progress) tried to prevent West from the incorrect lead by saying "you are in dummy".

 

However, as Director I would of course certainly act strictly according to the laws and when called to the table:

1: Establish precisely why I was called ("How can I help you?")

- According to OP the answer would be "North hesitated a significant periode of time before following suit with his single ♥Queen. That hesitation caused West to select an unfortunate line of play".

 

2: If at all I myself noticed that Weat at the time had led from the wrong hand I would note that nobody at the table mentioned this irregularity, which therefore is completely irrelevant in connection with the alleged hesitation.

 

3: Establish that according to the circumstances as presented to me North has hesitated for reasons known only to himself. I would therefore rule that he had violated Law 73D2. I would further rule that this irregularity in my opinion was likely to mislead West into an unfortunate line of play and adjust the result on the board accordingly.

 

4: Finally, if I find that the hesitation had been deliberate I would impose a PP on North. (Law 73D2 uses the clause "may not" which is the second strongest term in the laws.)

[Trinidad]

3: Establish that according to the circumstances as presented to me North has hesitated for reasons known only to himself.

This gets us back to the questions I asked before and that you didn't answer:

 

What are North's options?

How much time does it take North to realize what options he has?

How much time does it take North to choose from one of the options?

 

All together, we expect that this will take North several seconds. So North has a good bridge reason for a hesitation of several seconds.

 

That means that the reasons for North's hesitation are not only known to himself. No, the whole world knows the reason - the good bridge reason - for the hesitation.

 

There is only one person who doesn't know the reason for the hesitation. He doesn't see the reason since he would not hesitate himself in that situation. After all, he would instantaneously tell declarer that he is in dummy ... err... I mean instantaneously call the TD ... or?? ... was it now telling declaring he's in dummy? ... or ... perhaps graciously (or inattentively) accept the lead?!? ... or would he anyway think about law 53A? ... Anyway... err ... whatever he does ... it would be instantaneous ... somehow.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

If you don't ask North why he broke tempo, you're falling down on the job.

[pran]

If you don't ask North why he broke tempo, you're falling down on the job.

Who says I wouldn't ask?

But according to OP North didn't give any reason for his hesitation.

 

I believe we have a well established rule on this forum that the description given in OP shall be considered complete?

[Trinidad]

Who says I wouldn't ask?

But according to OP North didn't give any reason for his hesitation.

 

I believe we have a well established rule on this forum that the description given in OP shall be considered complete?

Perhaps everybody else in the forum realizes from the description given that North does have a decision to make and that therefore a hesitation is expected. They also realize that when North reacts exactly as he is expected to do, we don't have any reason to suspect that he is performing some kind of act to attempt to mislead declarer.

 

And if we don't have any reason to suspect an irregularity by North, there is little reason to ask him for his motives. (Though lots of posts ago someone was already suggesting that it might be wise to ask North why it took him some time to play to the trick... Just to be sure. I would certainly not be against that. And, yes, in the unlikely case that North should happen to say: "I hesitated to make declarer think that I had QJ." then we adjust. But we don't even think of adjusting as soon as North starts with anything that sounds like: "Well err... I thought he was in dummy" or "It was a lead out of turn and " or "I somehow didn't expect that I would be on play already" or "I was considering my options" or "I was wondering what to do" or "I was thinking of calling the TD" or ...)

 

A few years ago they past a law in the Netherlands that required everybody over 14 years to carry an ID. The police (or other authorities) are not allowed to ask for an ID, unless they have a good reason to know your identity (or age).

 

IMO, but this is an opinion, TDs should go about the same way when it comes to asking players about their thought processes or motives. As a TD, we do not ask North for his thought processes or motives, just because they might give us information. We need to have a good reason. In this case that good reason would be a suspicion of an irregularity. From the description in the OP I don't see any reason to suspect North of an irregularity. I can see that anybody who overlooked the LOOT will see lots of reasons to suspect an irregularity, but as soon as the LOOT is in the picture all suspicions are gone. North has been behaving exactly as we expected him to.

 

Of course, it is entirely possible that North was hesitating in an attempt to mislead declarer, just like it is entirely possible that the South player at the next table used UI. But there is no indication whatsoever that the South player at the next table used UI, so we are not going over to ask him some questions. In a similar way, there is no indication whatsoever that this North was hesitating to mislead declarer. So there is no reason to ask any questions.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Who says I wouldn't ask?

But according to OP North didn't give any reason for his hesitation.

 

I believe we have a well established rule on this forum that the description given in OP shall be considered complete?

Rule? No. I will say that I don't think we can make assumptions about a particular case if the OP doesn't specify all the pertinent facts.

 

The discussion had gone, imo, from the specific "what happened in the OP case" to the general "how do we handle these cases".