A BIT of all right

[jallerton]

Why is the regulation illegal? Isn't it just explaining that deciding which low card to play when following suit is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo in the context of Law 73?

 

By the way, it is possible to think about one's signal without breaking tempo. it is also highly desirable. Varying tempo before signalling provides UI to partner; this makes defending even harder for players who are trying to comply with their ethical obligations.

 

 

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

 

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

 

I don't understand. A defender has 62 doubleton in a suit defending against 7NT. Declarer leads the jack from hand. What is the bridge reason for breaking tempo in deciding whether to play the 6 or the 2?

 

It is desirable, though not always required, to maintain steadying tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

 

This is not some moral statement which Gordon has invented; it is a direct quote from the Law.

[helene_t]

What if West says "sorry, need to think about the whole hand"?

This sounds like he is saying explicitly that he is not thinking of covering. He is not required to help declarer that much.

 

So it would be better to say "sorry, have to turn my phone off" :)

[pran]

This sounds like he is saying explicitly that he is not thinking of covering. He is not required to help declarer that much.

 

So it would be better to say "sorry, have to turn my phone off" :)

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

[lamford]

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Any remark which suggests that you do not have an honour in the suit could be construed as misleading if you do have one. If you have no demonstrable bridge reason to break tempo, the infraction has occurred whatever you say.

[pran]

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Any remark which suggests that you do not have an honour in the suit could be construed as misleading if you do have one. If you have no demonstrable bridge reason to break tempo, the infraction has occurred whatever you say.

I intentially wrote "appears true".

 

You as TD, and the other players at the table will probably be quite competent in judging the difference between a player apparently concentrating on some question and a player apparently just being absentminded?

[barmar]

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Isn't that admitting that he's violating 74B1: "paying insufficient attention to the game"? So he's just replacing one possible infraction with another.

[pran]

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Isn't that admitting that he's violating 74B1: "paying insufficient attention to the game"? So he's just replacing one possible infraction with another.

Sure,

but it is replacing a possibly serious violation (of Law 74C7) with a certainly more excusable violation (of Law 74B1).

 

Who has never accidentally failed to immediately observe when it is his turn to call (or play)?

[barmar]

Sure,

but it is replacing a possibly serious violation (of Law 74C7) with a certainly more excusable violation (of Law 74B1).

 

Who has never accidentally failed to immediately observe when it is his turn to call (or play)?

Is it appropriate to say that you were absent-minded if that wasn't actually the case, but you're trying to hide the fact that you were thinking about the card? Isn't lying about the reason for your hesitation a violation of 73D1: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...".

 

So you can't coffeehouse, and you can't try to get away with it by saying that you weren't coffeehousing -- both of them violate 73D1. You have to be truly distracted in order to claim that you're only violating 74B1.

 

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

[pran]

Is it appropriate to say that you were absent-minded if that wasn't actually the case, but you're trying to hide the fact that you were thinking about the card? Isn't lying about the reason for your hesitation a violation of 73D1: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...".

 

So you can't coffeehouse, and you can't try to get away with it by saying that you weren't coffeehousing -- both of them violate 73D1. You have to be truly distracted in order to claim that you're only violating 74B1.

 

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

This is insulting.

 

To repeat myself - I intentially wrote "appears true". And I never accept anybody deliberately lying, so I don't appreciate (repeated) suggestions that I favour fancy excuses in order to conceal a serious infringement of the laws.

[blackshoe]

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

I doubt very much that the lawmakers were thinking along the lines you suggest here when they made that law. I also doubt the regulating authorities were thinking along those lines when they implemented it in regulation.

[lamford]

This is insulting.

 

To repeat myself - I intentially wrote "appears true". And I never accept anybody deliberately lying, so I don't appreciate (repeated) suggestions that I favour fancy excuses in order to conceal a serious infringement of the laws.

Rubbish. Barmar is exactly right that if you say that you were absent-minded you are ruled against whether you were or were not thinking about a call or play. There is no difference. If you do not have a demonstrable bridge reason, you have committed an infraction, accidentally or otherwise.

[barmar]

This is insulting.

 

To repeat myself - I intentially wrote "appears true". And I never accept anybody deliberately lying, so I don't appreciate (repeated) suggestions that I favour fancy excuses in order to conceal a serious infringement of the laws.

Maybe it wasn't intended that way, but I interpreted "appears true" as meaning it's not actually true, you just try to make it look that way. Just like when you're making the required hesitation after a skip bid, you're supposed to make it look like you actually have something to think about (because if partner can tell the difference between a real hesitation and a required hesitation, it defeats the purpose of preventing UI).

[pran]

Maybe it wasn't intended that way, but I interpreted "appears true" as meaning it's not actually true, you just try to make it look that way. Just like when you're making the required hesitation after a skip bid, you're supposed to make it look like you actually have something to think about (because if partner can tell the difference between a real hesitation and a required hesitation, it defeats the purpose of preventing UI).

When a remark "Sorry, I was just absent-minded" appears true in the opinion of the Director so that the Director accepts it as a true statement to be believed then .....

 

That is in my opinion how what I wrote was to be understood, and I am sorry if someone didn't understand it that way.

[barmar]

Why don't you just say "provided it's true", if that's what you really meant?

 

Of course, the players (and director asking them how it seemed) might not believe you, since it's a self-serving statement.

[pran]

Why don't you just say "provided it's true", if that's what you really meant?

 

Of course, the players (and director asking them how it seemed) might not believe you, since it's a self-serving statement.

Because nobody can tell with absolute certainty if it is true, and that is not important.

What is important is if the Director judges it to be true, and that is what I meant (and still mean).

[lamford]

Because nobody can tell with absolute certainty if it is true, and that is not important.

What is important is if the Director judges it to be true, and that is what I meant (and still mean).

It is not important at all. It does not matter one iota if the director believes the player was telling the truth if he states "Sorry I was absent-minded". That would not be a demonstrable bridge reason for a BIT, whether or not it is true.

[Vampyr]

It is not important at all. It does not matter one iota if the director believes the player was telling the truth if he states "Sorry I was absent-minded". That would not be a demonstrable bridge reason for a BIT, whether or not it is true.

 

Still, I would rule against an "absent-minded" player only if he held the Ace, or other applicable card.

[pran]

Still, I would rule against an "absent-minded" player only if he held the Ace, or other applicable card.

Investigating that is of course part of the Director's duty.

 

I had never in my wildest dreams expected it necessary to go into such details as have been brought up in this discussion.

 

The Director must judge the credibility of the offender's (self serving) statement and then make his judgement.

 

Essentially that is all I have stated from the beginning - shouldn't that be enough?

 

We must never ignore a self serving statement solely on the ground that it is self serving! Such practice will turn bridge into a hostile game, and I (for one) certainly do not want that to happen. It will mean death to bridge.

[barmar]

Because nobody can tell with absolute certainty if it is true, and that is not important.

What is important is if the Director judges it to be true, and that is what I meant (and still mean).

You still seem to be arguing that you should make the statement if you can get away with it, not whether it's true or not.

 

It is not important at all. It does not matter one iota if the director believes the player was telling the truth if he states "Sorry I was absent-minded". That would not be a demonstrable bridge reason for a BIT, whether or not it is true.

That's true, it's not a defense against 73D1 (maintaining steady tempo and being particularly careful in tempo-sensitive situations) or 73F (variation with no demonstrable bridge reason). But it would be a defense against 73D2, attempting to mislead an opponent, which is a more serious offense.

[LinusO]

I have been thinking about this hand.

Lets say that first trick is played very fast and declarer at once plays the jack of spades to get information who has the queen of spades.

If west hesitates then he will let the jack run and call TD and asking the result to be changed claiming law 73.

 

If west needs time to think through the hand how he should signal trick two, it might be suitpreference like here, if he should give honest count, if he can afford to give honest count or against no trump what smith echo signal he should give.

 

What of these alternatives do you think east-west can/should use to prevent declarer doing the trick to play trick 2 instantly to get information if he should finesse, described above:

 

1. Third hand can always think trick 1 even when he has no bridgereason to do so and declarer cannot call td and claim law 73.

 

2. Third hand should always play trick 1 upside down to give the defence time to think.

 

3. Declarer is not allowed to play trick 2 until both opponents has turned their card upside down. And if he does that can the defence call TD and claim what?

[pran]

I have been thinking about this hand.

Lets say that first trick is played very fast and declarer at once plays the jack of spades to get information who has the queen of spades.

If west hesitates then he will let the jack run and call TD and asking the result to be changed claiming law 73.

 

If west needs time to think through the hand how he should signal trick two, it might be suitpreference like here, if he should give honest count, if he can afford to give honest count or against no trump what smith echo signal he should give.

 

What of these alternatives do you think east-west can/should use to prevent declarer doing the trick to play trick 2 instantly to get information if he should finesse, described above:

 

1. Third hand can always think trick 1 even when he has no bridgereason to do so and declarer cannot call td and claim law 73.

 

2. Third hand should always play trick 1 upside down to give the defence time to think.

 

3. Declarer is not allowed to play trick 2 until both opponents has turned their card upside down. And if he does that can the defence call TD and claim what?

1: Third hand is always allowed a period of ten seconds from the moment the opening lead was made before playing to trick 1 regardless of how quickly Declarer plays from dummy to trick 1.

 

3: No hesitation applies for any player still having his last played card face up on the table when a lead to the next trick is made.

[wank]

1: Third hand is always allowed a period of ten seconds from the moment the opening lead was made before playing to trick 1 regardless of how quickly Declarer plays from dummy to trick 1.

 

3: No hesitation applies for any player still having his last played card face up on the table when a lead to the next trick is made.

 

i can guess where you've pulled those answers from, because it's certainly not the law book.

[pran]

i can guess where you've pulled those answers from, because it's certainly not the law book.

Correct,

But you will find them in various commentaries to the laws and also in a variety of regulations.

[blackshoe]

Frankly, declarer can claim whatever he likes. Doesn't mean the director will agree with him.

[barmar]

Frankly, declarer can claim whatever he likes. Doesn't mean the director will agree with him.

I think the question was what the defenders should claim when they call the TD because declarer played too soon.

 

They should claim that they were still thinking about the whole hand. As mentioned earlier, the reason it's not a valid bridge reason to hesitate when declarer leads the ♠J is because you're supposed to plan ahead so you can follow smoothly. That's why regulators have allowed extra time at trick 1, that's when you should do that planning. If declarer plays too quickly to trick 2, and you're required to follow in tempo, you're put into an impossible situation -- you never got a chance to plan, so you're forced to do your thinking at a tempo-sensitive time.