The Corgi is Caught

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqjt742h8d43c92&w=s9653hkqt3d962cq7&n=sha7542dqt75ckj43&e=s8hj96dakj8cat865&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=4sppp]399|300[/hv]

MPs. Table result 4S? Lead K♥

 

SB is a keen reader of these columns and picked up a clever ruse from another thread (to which he gives his thanks) and he was quick to put it into action on this third director call in one round (!) from the recent North London Individual. Against the normal spade game, with RR North this time, CC led the king of hearts, and SB quickly saw a significant extra chance, which would put the contract in the 75% area. He won with the ace, ruffed a heart, and cashed only three rounds of trumps at fair speed, East discarding a small club, discouraging, and a heart, before advancing the two of clubs. CC was expecting the fourth round of trumps to be drawn (as SB never miscounts trumps) and had partially detached the nine of spades, but realised in time and replaced it with the seven of clubs. SB played the king and was one down.

 

"DIRECTOOOOR", SB bellowed. "There was a BIT by CC in a particularly sensitive situation. West could have known that partially extracting one card and replacing it with another would cause me to place him with the ace of clubs, and I think that Law 23 applies. With the ace, he would have not known whether I was 8-1-3-1 or 8-1-2-2 and he would have had a problem. With Qx he had no such problem."

 

How would you rule?

[manudude03]

How did West manage to partially extract a card not in his hand? It seems to me as if West simply says he was expecting a spade and was about to play it before changing, then you have to rule result stands, but would tell West not to start taking out a card from hand until it is his turn to play. I would call double-checking with yourself if you really want to revoke a bridge reason. If this is an adjustment, then it would also have to be an adjustment if say West partially extracted the ♦9 if that was the card next to the ♣7.

[ggwhiz]

At any club or tournament I play in locally, sticky cards is a legitimate defense.

[weejonnie]

Which law is SB invoking BTW - The Corgi hasn't committed an irregularity other than 74B (A player should refrain from detaching a card) - and even then this is 'not often penalised' so Law 23 won't be applied and 73C says that changes in manner/ tempo may be drawn only at the opponents' own risk. and Law 75F doesn't apply as the Corgi did have a demonstrable bridge reason for the action - to follow suit 44C - 'which takes precedence over all other requirements in these laws'.

[lamford]

How did West manage to partially extract a card not in his hand? It seems to me as if West simply says he was expecting a spade and was about to play it before changing, then you have to rule result stands, but would tell West not to start taking out a card from hand until it is his turn to play. I would call double-checking with yourself if you really want to revoke a bridge reason. If this is an adjustment, then it would also have to be an adjustment if say West partially extracted the ♦9 if that was the card next to the ♣7.

Sorry, nine of spades, corrected. More importantly, how would you rule if SB was West, and knew that declarer was likely to have a club guess, and partially pulled out a card and then replaced it with the seven of clubs and then claimed, falsely, that he pulled the wrong card and had to replace it ...?

[lamford]

Which law is SB invoking BTW - The Corgi hasn't committed an irregularity other than 74B (A player should refrain from detaching a card) - and even then this is 'not often penalised' so Law 23 won't be applied and 73C says that changes in manner/ tempo may be drawn only at the opponents' own risk. and Law 75F doesn't apply as the Corgi did have a demonstrable bridge reason for the action - to follow suit 44C - 'which takes precedence over all other requirements in these laws'.

SB is claiming an infraction under 73D1.

[weejonnie]

I think that ChCh would be more likely to do that, but he would do it whether or not there was a possible guess. There would be more complaints if it turned out that he DID have a guess to make and declarer assumed he was trying his tricks out. For the Chimp to be honest is to be dishonest.

 

I would still say that 44C would apply.

 

However I do concede the point that what happens in real life is often very different to what happens in a Kaplanesque Universe. It is an unjust world and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.

[barmar]

SB took this line specifically because he expected it to catch CC off guard, and cause him to fumble (that was the "extra chance" the OP said he saw). How could he then come back and say that the fumble caused him to misguess? He knew full well that CC wasn't deciding between clubs, he was putting back the spade.

 

Can you really claim to be misled by an irregularity that you deliberately induced and expected?

[lamford]

SB took this line specifically because he expected it to catch CC off guard, and cause him to fumble (that was the "extra chance" the OP said he saw). How could he then come back and say that the fumble caused him to misguess? He knew full well that CC wasn't deciding between clubs, he was putting back the spade.

 

Can you really claim to be misled by an irregularity that you deliberately induced and expected?

I am reporting as I believe to be the case, mainly because I was suspicious when SB drew only 3 trumps. SB will, of course, claim that he just played a normal line and was deceived by the fumble.

[pran]

I am reporting as I believe to be the case, mainly because I was suspicious when SB drew only 3 trumps. SB will, of course, claim that he just played a normal line and was deceived by the fumble.

It was his third Director call in that round (OP)?

 

If I had been the Director I would just have smiled at him and said: "Come on - - - take the next board!"

[nige1]

IMO, declarer broke no law,. Unless the director can read minds, he can't know why declarer played the way he did. LHO could have known that fumbling would put declarer off finessing the knave. We are told that wasn't the reason for his fumble but his actual thoughts are of doubtful relevance. The director is concerned only with what his motives could have been. If LHO claims that he thought declarer was going to draw the last trump, that is a self-serving argument. Anyway, LHO should not try to anticipate declarer's plays. Hence, IMO, the director should rule in declarer's favour, unless he learns that declarer varied from his normal tempo.

 

A similar case is when declarer, plays a hopeless grand slam, in normal tempo, but switches from suit to suit, in the hope of inducing a revoke. Are such ploys illegal? If they are, then what laws apply.

[weejonnie]

IMO, declarer broke no law,. Unless the director can read minds, he can't know why declarer played the way he did. LHO could have known that fumbling would put declarer off rising with CK. We are told that wasn't the reason for his fumble but his actual thoughts are of doubtful relevance. The director is concerned only with what his motives could have been. If LHO claims that he thought declarer was going to draw the last trump, that is self-serving. Anyway, LHO should not try to anticipate declarer's plays. Hence, IMO, the director should rule in declarer's favour, unless he learns that declarer varied from his normal tempo.

 

A similar case is when declarer, plays hopeless grand slam in normal tempo but switches from suit to suit in the hope of inducing a revoke. Are such ploys illegal? If they are, then what laws apply.

No - you can switch from suit to suit in tempo - no problem there. What would be unacceptable is playing very quickly hoping to induce an error e.g. in cashing A♠, K♠, Q♣ ....

 

(If CC hadn't tried to anticipate SBs play then this wouldn't have happened. However there is a lot of difference between deciding if something is illegal/ legal and deciding if it was right/ wrong.)

[shyams]

IMO, the SB wins this one.

 

There is no way for declarer to play his top three trumps very fast without the defenders cooperating by speeding up as well. Why would anyone do that? There is nothing wrong with taking (say) one second to play each card carefully.

 

Sometimes the defenders get caught out by tempo plays and lose. This one is no different.

[lamford]

It was his third Director call in that round (OP)?

 

If I had been the Director I would just have smiled at him and said: "Come on - - - take the next board!"

The previous two, a non-established revoke and a defender's card held so that his partner could see it, have been reported on here. In all three cases the (alleged) infraction was by the opponents, twice by RR and once by CC. Are you suggesting that SB is any way responsible for those? You are adopting the "three strikes and you're out" approach, when all three were balls. The club has designed a T-shirt for SB with "I don't break the Laws" on the front and "My opponents do" on the back.

[pran]

The previous two, a non-established revoke and a defender's card held so that his partner could see it, have been reported on here. In all three cases the (alleged) infraction was by the opponents, twice by RR and once by CC. Are you suggesting that SB is any way responsible for those? You are adopting the "three strikes and you're out" approach, when all three were balls. The club has designed a T-shirt for SB with "I don't break the Laws" on the front and "My opponents do" on the back.

No, but if the same player is involved in that frequency of calls for the Director I shall probably long ago have established an impression of a player who is more interested in law than in playing bridge.

 

It is of course quite possible that he has a genuine reason for calling the Director, but in my opinion that was not the case here. And without wasting more time on investigation I would simply dismiss the complaint and refer it for him to appeal if he so feels.

 

After all, the "normal" frequency of TD calls in events where I have been involved very seldom even approached an average of one call per round over the entire event, and it has been extremely unlikely that the same player needed to call the Director more than once during the same event (except of course follow-up calls on the same irregularity).

[lamford]

No, but if the same player is involved in that frequency of calls for the Director I shall probably long ago have established an impression of a player who is more interested in law than in playing bridge.

Indeed, but the number of calls against SB has been minimal so one should conclude that his opponents are not as familiar with the minutiae of the laws as he is. Does he not have every right to call the TD whenever there is an infraction?

[nige1]

No, but if the same player is involved in that frequency of calls for the Director I shall probably long ago have established an impression of a player who is more interested in law than in playing bridge.

 

It is of course quite possible that he has a genuine reason for calling the Director, but in my opinion that was not the case here. And without wasting more time on investigation I would simply dismiss the complaint and refer it for him to appeal if he so feels.

 

After all, the "normal" frequency of TD calls in events where I have been involved very seldom even approached an average of one call per round over the entire event, and it has been extremely unlikely that the same player needed to call the Director more than once during the same event (except of course follow-up calls on the same irregularity).

IMO, players should be interested in playing bridge -- but in accord with the rules -- of which too many seem ignorant.

 

The current legal malaise is a result of woolly rules, sloppy enforcement, and general apathy. Current on-line discussions about 3rd hand openings, faulty claims, and so on provide relevant examples. For example, Cascade drew the authorities' attention to how experts bid 3rd-in-hand, years ago.

 

Players who try to abide by the rules deserve the protection of directors. (It is bad enough when directors turn a blind eye to players dismissive of or ignorant of Bridge rules). Allowing directors and players to choose which rules to enforce and to obey, surrenders a hostage to fortune. For example, it weakens officials' authority to deal with alleged cheating.

[manudude03]

Sorry, nine of spades, corrected. More importantly, how would you rule if SB was West, and knew that declarer was likely to have a club guess, and partially pulled out a card and then replaced it with the seven of clubs and then claimed, falsely, that he pulled the wrong card and had to replace it ...?

 

Still result stands, provided I do not believe that the SB is in violation of 73D2. The way I see it, if you split the time taken between active time (where you are in the motion a card out in order to play it) and thinking time (the rest of it), it seems as if there was very little thinking time and a lot of action time. I suppose as director, you could ask West to spread their hand to see if their story is feasible (similar to a mispull test during the auction).

.

[lamford]

Still result stands, provided I do not believe that the SB is in violation of 73D2. The way I see it, if you split the time taken between active time (where you are in the motion a card out in order to play it) and thinking time (the rest of it), it seems as if there was very little thinking time and a lot of action time. I suppose as director, you could ask West to spread their hand to see if their story is feasible (similar to a mispull test during the auction).

I don't think that the deception is the amount of thinking time, which might, as you say, be minimal. It is the false impression given that there was a change of card selection. So, if anyone says they pulled the wrong card and had to change it in this siuation, I would adjust, on the balance of probabilities, and quote Mandy Rice Davies: "Well he would [say that], wouldn’t he?"

[barmar]

So, if anyone says they pulled the wrong card and had to change it in this siuation, I would adjust, on the balance of probabilities, and quote Mandy Rice Davies: "Well he would [say that], wouldn’t he?"

You're essentially saying that all self-serving statements should be discounted, since that's what he would say regardless of whether it's true or not. I.e. everyone is a liar.

[nige1]

I don't think that the deception is the amount of thinking time, which might, as you say, be minimal. It is the false impression given that there was a change of card selection. So, if anyone says they pulled the wrong card and had to change it in this siuation, I would adjust, on the balance of probabilities, and quote Mandy Rice Davies: "Well he would [say that], wouldn't he?"

You're essentially saying that all self-serving statements should be discounted, since that's what he would say regardless of whether it's true or not. I.e. everyone is a liar.

I agree with Lambert that self-serving statements should be taken for what they are -- and credence should vary with context and probability estimates.

[barmar]

I agree with Lambert that self-serving statements should be taken for what they are -- and credence should vary with context and probability estimates.

And in this case, CC's explanation is quite credible. It should be, since SB was counting on it.

[nige1]

And in this case, CC's explanation is quite credible. It should be, since SB was counting on it.

Should the director reward CC for the infractions to which he seems to have admitted?

 

 

 

[lamford]

And in this case, CC's explanation is quite credible. It should be, since SB was counting on it.

We only have speculation, and hearsay evidence that SB was gloating about his ruse in the bar later, that SB induced a BIT. SB stated to the TD that his opponent deceived him.

[weejonnie]

We only have speculation, and hearsay evidence that SB was gloating about his ruse in the bar later, that SB induced a BIT. SB stated to the TD that his opponent deceived him.

Was this more than 30 minutes after the end of the session?