The Corgi is Caught

[lamford]

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

Of course. SB knew the correction period and the ruling was originally in his favour.

[barmar]

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.

Sounds self-serving to me. Hoist on his own petard!

[barmar]

Anyway, I disagree with SB's argument that a defender could have known that preparing his play to the likely next trick could result in fumbling that deceives declarer enough to cause him to guess wrong. The causal chain is just too tenuous for anyone to consider while they're planning their play. 73D1 says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side", but I don't think CC could know that this is such a situation. It seems like SB effectively considers that to be true all the time -- he's never failed to find a way to argue that an opponent's hitch occurred in a tempo-sensitive situation. But the Lawmakers couldn't have meant that, or they wouldn't have included the qualifier, they would just have said that you must always maintain steady tempo.

 

Basically, SB seems to use circular reasoning: since he claims he was misled, the opponent could have known that he would be misled, so he should get redress for the opponent's tempo break. But then what are we to make of the last sentence of this law, which says that inferences are drawn at your own risk? If you can always claim that the opponent could have known of the effect of his tempo break, where's the risk?

 

All these qualifiers in the Law are why I think it was never intended to be interpreted as liberally as SB regularly does. Bridge players aren't expected to be robotic.

[lamford]

But the Lawmakers couldn't have meant that, or they wouldn't have included the qualifier, they would just have said that you must always maintain steady tempo.

I think the particularly sensitive situations the Lawmamkers might have in mind include when declarer leads small towards KJ(x) or leads the jack towards A(K)xx. The qualifier suggests that a hitch when declarer leads low towards AKQ tripleton is unlikely to deceive, so I do not agree with your argument.

[nige1]

Unless the director is a telepath, he isn't privy to SB's thoughts. Unless clairvoyant, he won't anticipate SB's bar boast. He avoids prejudgement arising from past unproven suspicions. He relies on information gleaned at the table. :)

 

SB's indiscretions, elsewhere, might prompt club-members to consider expulsion. :( But that's a different matter.

[lamford]

SB's indiscretions, elsewhere, might prompt club-members to consider expulsion. :( But that's a different matter.

They did consider it, but there have been, as you say, unproven suspicions, based on the sheer volume of director calls, and the committee decided not to propose expulsion.

[barmar]

I think the particularly sensitive situations the Lawmamkers might have in mind include when declarer leads small towards KJ(x) or leads the jack towards A(K)xx. The qualifier suggests that a hitch when declarer leads low towards AKQ tripleton is unlikely to deceive, so I do not agree with your argument.

But the irregularity happened before declarer led towards the KJ.

 

Are you saying that the simple existence of that combination in dummy means that CC has to be particularly careful on every trick, in case declarer switches to a club, so he can play in tempo on the club trick?

[lamford]

But the irregularity happened before declarer led towards the KJ.

 

Are you saying that the simple existence of that combination in dummy means that CC has to be particularly careful on every trick, in case declarer switches to a club, so he can play in tempo on the club trick?

No, the irregularity happened at the same time as declarer led towards the KJ but CC was already expecting the last trump to be drawn. The acid test is whether he could have been aware that playing out of tempo on a club lead could damage the non-offender ...

[manudude03]

If 73D1 was to be taken as literally as you suggest, there would be no reason at all to include 73D2. 73D2 says that a player may not attempt to deceive declarer by the manner of which the card is played (whether it be by the speed of the card or a gesture). To attempt suggests to deliberately try to deceive, which would mean that in this case, the defender would have to be thinking "if I wait a few seconds before playing low, declarer will likely play me for the ace".

[lamford]

If 73D1 was to be taken as literally as you suggest, there would be no reason at all to include 73D2. 73D2 says that a player may not attempt to deceive declarer by the manner of which the card is played (whether it be by the speed of the card or a gesture). To attempt suggests to deliberately try to deceive, which would mean that in this case, the defender would have to be thinking "if I wait a few seconds before playing low, declarer will likely play me for the ace".

The whole purpose of Law 23 is that we do not need to decide whether there was a deliberate attempt to deceive. We have (in Law 73): "<snip> players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side <snip>" This is clearly a situation where a variation (seeming to change a card either accidentally or intentionally, it matters not) may work to the benefit of their side. So we adjust. As the TD did.

[barmar]

I have another issue with this. SB is equating fumbling with the cards with having a problem deciding which card to play. If someone fumbles, it seems far more likely that he pulled the wrong card, not that he had a decision and changed his mind.

[manudude03]

The whole purpose of Law 23 is that we do not need to decide whether there was a deliberate attempt to deceive. We have: "<snip> players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side <snip>" This is clearly a situation where a variation (seeming to change a card either accidentally or intentionally, it matters not) may work to the benefit of their side. So we adjust. As the TD did.

 

You are missing my point, 73D2 would not be there at all unless there could be a situation where you could violate it without also violating 73D1 (noting that 73D2 gives hesitancy as an example). Also, 73D1 says players should be particularly careful implying that it is rarely punished. I did say in my initial reply that I would remind West about keeping tempo in situations like this, but I wouldn't adjust.

[lamford]

You are missing my point, 73D2 would not be there at all unless there could be a situation where you could violate it without also violating 73D1 (noting that 73D2 gives hesitancy as an example). Also, 73D1 says players should be particularly careful implying that it is rarely punished. I did say in my initial reply that I would remind West about keeping tempo in situations like this, but I wouldn't adjust.

I wouldn't rule out verbosity in the laws for the sake of emphasis. The problem with reminding West without adjusting is that there will be a different TD and different club next time. It is standard to adjust here, although other TDs might offer a view of whether they do. And "should" does not mean there is no infraction. It just means that one would not give a PP.

[lamford]

I have another issue with this. SB is equating fumbling with the cards with having a problem deciding which card to play. If someone fumbles, it seems far more likely that he pulled the wrong card, not that he had a decision and changed his mind.

It could be either. I don't know how you can tell.

[barmar]

Also, 73D1 says players should be particularly careful implying that it is rarely punished.

A score adjustment is not a punishment, it's simply redressinig the damage that was caused by the irregularity. The punishment that's mentioned in the "should" vs. "must" distinction refers to procedural penalties, which may be assessed independent of adjustments.

[barmar]

It could be either. I don't know how you can tell.

So the TD must rule based on the worst case, rather than the most likely one?

[lamford]

So the TD must rule based on the worst case, rather than the most likely one?

No, the TD only decides whether the offender could have been aware that the BIT could well damage the non-offenders, not whether he was more likely to be aware, nor whether it was more likely to damage the non-offending side than not. If he has no demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT (and a fumble is not deemed a demonstrable bridge reason) then in general he could be aware. And this is right. We don't want people "giving it a look" for whatever reason with nothing to look at.

[barmar]

You seem to be mixing up different laws. "could have been aware that an irregularity could well damage" is Law 23. I'm asking about 73, where it says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." If it's not such a situation, they don't have to be "particularly careful", so fumbling is not an irregularity. The determination of whether it's such a situation must be based on information that the player had available to him at the time of the action in question. We can't go back in time and say "Because SB was misled, it must have been a tempo-sensitive situation, so you should have been more careful." How is a player supposed to know when they have to be particularly careful if it requires mind reading or seeing the future?

[lamford]

You seem to be mixing up different laws. "could have been aware that an irregularity could well damage" is Law 23. I'm asking about 73, where it says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." If it's not such a situation, they don't have to be "particularly careful", so fumbling is not an irregularity. The determination of whether it's such a situation must be based on information that the player had available to him at the time of the action in question. We can't go back in time and say "Because SB was misled, it must have been a tempo-sensitive situation, so you should have been more careful." How is a player supposed to know when they have to be particularly careful if it requires mind reading or seeing the future?

When a player has the queen of a suit in which dummy has KJ, and when your partner is known to have the ace of the suit (or declarer would be too strong for a 4S opening bid), this seems a situation in which a player has to be particularly careful to play in tempo, and any TD should rule that fumbling is an irregularity under Law 73, especially as the fumble was caused, as admitted by CC, by detaching a card before he knew what suit was being led. Law 73F provides:

 

"When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score."

 

Even if you decide that the player did have a demonstrable bridge reason, but was not particularly careful, you can still use the catchall Law 23 to catch the corgi as it were. If you decide that he had a demonstrable bridge reason and was particularly careful, then you would indeed be right not to adjust. But you would risk an appeal to the National Authority.

[blackshoe]

When I read the OP, I did not read any "fumble" into the player's actions. He partially detached a card, expecting a trump lead, and when he didn't get a trump lead, he pushed that card back down and followed suit. No fumble.

[lamford]

When I read the OP, I did not read any "fumble" into the player's actions. He partially detached a card, expecting a trump lead, and when he didn't get a trump lead, he pushed that card back down and followed suit. No fumble.

I think "fumble" is used colloquially for the more correct "break in tempo". Partially detaching a card for whatever reason, putting it back and then playing a different card is a "fumble" or, if you prefer, BIT. It matters not. SB did not claim a fumble. Barmar introduced the expression in #8: "How could he then come back and say that the fumble caused him to misguess?"

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure it's a break in tempo, either.

[StevenG]

Since SB noticed the card being put back, presumably he also noticed its replacement coming from a different part of CC's hand.

[barmar]

When I read the OP, I did not read any "fumble" into the player's actions. He partially detached a card, expecting a trump lead, and when he didn't get a trump lead, he pushed that card back down and followed suit. No fumble.

SB's opinion is that actiona where you start playing one card and then switch to a different card are indistinguishable. Since it could be because you changed your mind about which card of the suit to follow with, it must be ruled as a violation of the Law requiring extra care in such situations.

 

But if it was clear that the player had actually started detaching the card before SB led to the trick, I don't see how he can claim that replacing the card could mislead.

[pran]

SB's opinion is that actiona where you start playing one card and then switch to a different card are indistinguishable. Since it could be because you changed your mind about which card of the suit to follow with, it must be ruled as a violation of the Law requiring extra care in such situations.

 

But if it was clear that the player had actually started detaching the card before SB led to the trick, I don't see how he can claim that replacing the card could mislead.

I will go even further than that:

The player had a legitimate bridge reason to expect another trump lead, and although it is incorrect to detach a card from his hand before that lead has actually been made it is quite excusable.

 

Now restoring that card to his hand and playing another does not indicate a change of mind as such. It doesn't even indicate that the player still has another trump.

 

His action only indicates that he had to change which card to play in order to avoid a revoke.