The Corgi is Caught

[lamford]

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

How would he know in which order CC's hand was sorted?

[lamford]

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.

SB merely stated that there was a break in tempo. I wrote that SB stated: "There was a BIT by CC in a particularly sensitive situation." The OP narrated the reasons for the BIT, and indeed CC confirmed that the narration was accurate. SB made no other claims (until after the ruling) regarding the reason for the BIT. That is all conjecture. All the TD has to decide is a) whether there was a BIT; b) could CC have known that the BIT would deceive. The TD ruled "YES" and "YES". It is not SB's job to decide whether there was a change of mind or the reason for it.

[lamford]

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.

How is it excusable? I accept that it might be a legitimate bridge reason, but this was a situation where "extra care was necessary", as CC could work out that SB was very likely to have a club guess.

[barmar]

How would he know in which order CC's hand was sorted?

And even if he did, he wouldn't violate the law prohibiting trying to see where he was pulling cards from.

[pran]

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.

How is it excusable? I accept that it might be a legitimate bridge reason, but this was a situation where "extra care was necessary", as CC could work out that SB was very likely to have a club guess.

Why is it not excusable when there is a legitimate bridge reason?

 

My qualified assumption is that when the defender managed to be slightly ahead of the lead from declarer in selecting which card to play it was because he expected another trump and prepared himself for his play in due time.

 

I don't suspect that the defender played any faster than normal, I suspect that declarer had a small break in tempo because of switching to a different suit.

[barmar]

Why is it not excusable when there is a legitimate bridge reason?

But he didn't have a legitimate bridge reason to detach a card early in the first place.

I don't suspect that the defender played any faster than normal, I suspect that declarer had a small break in tempo because of switching to a different suit.

SB break tempo? Never!

 

Although if he did, could he also have violated 73D1? This is also a tempo-sensitive situation for the defenders.

[lamford]

Why is it not excusable when there is a legitimate bridge reason?

 

My qualified assumption is that when the defender managed to be slightly ahead of the lead from declarer in selecting which card to play it was because he expected another trump and prepared himself for his play in due time.

 

I don't suspect that the defender played any faster than normal, I suspect that declarer had a small break in tempo because of switching to a different suit.

The declarer, SB, played at uniform speed. Usually fairly quickly as is his wont. The finding of fact as to whether there was a BIT by the Corgi was conducted by the TD, OO on this occasion, who decided there was. CC admitted as much. He estimated that he had taken two seconds to each of the first three rounds of trumps and four seconds to follow to the first round of clubs. He admitted to detaching one card before realising a club had been played The TD decided that he had nothing to think about on any of the four cards. In fact, OO thought CC might have wanted to give suit preference in trumps, so any BIT there would not have been in a sensitive situation and would not have deceived. However, the BIT on the first round of clubs was closer to a PP than to no adjustment. If CC had played low in tempo on the club, SB would almost surely play the jack from dummy, as West would often rise with the ace of clubs, necessary when South is 8-1-3-1. CC could have known that "simulating" the possession of the ace could well damage the non-offending side.

 

I am quite staggered that there is a single person not adjusting here, in a completely standard, routine position. I am also disappointed how few TDs are sticking their neck out and giving reasons why they would or would not.

[WellSpyder]

I'm confused. (No doubt SB's intention!) I thought if a player has a legitimate bridge reason to think then declarer draws any inferences from a BIT at his own risk - he can't decide he knows what the legitimate bridge reason is and then get an adjustment if he has decided wrongly.

 

(I still remember a county A-team defender hesitating for ages over a discard with only worthless cards in his hand at trick 10 or 11, causing my partner as declarer to play to have squeezed him rather than taking the finesse he had planned to take. The defender successfully claimed that he was trying to remember whether he needed to keep his last heart to avoid setting up one for declarer, even though all twelve of the other hearts had already been played.)

[lamford]

I'm confused. (No doubt SB's intention!) I thought if a player has a legitimate bridge reason to think then declarer draws any inferences from a BIT at his own risk - he can't decide he knows what the legitimate bridge reason is and then get an adjustment if he has decided wrongly.

 

(I still remember a county A-team defender hesitating for ages over a discard with only worthless cards in his hand at trick 10 or 11, causing my partner as declarer to play to have squeezed him rather than taking the finesse he had planned to take. The defender successfully claimed that he was trying to remember whether he needed to keep his last heart to avoid setting up one for declarer, even though all twelve of the other hearts had already been played.)

I have experienced that as well, and think that while they are bridge reasons, they are not demonstrable bridge reasons. But even if it is a demonstrable bridge reason, there is a further requirement to be careful in sensitive situations. Otherwise there would be no purpose to the extra sentence: "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." If somebody has a bridge reason but was not particularly careful, then one can adjust under Law 23. That is what I would do in the type of case you cite where someone could specify a spurious bridge reason.

 

And in this example, someone can and should be able to conclude that a BIT means the player has the ace, and he can and should be able to get an adjustment if that proves not to be the case. No other reason for the BIT should be accepted as a demonstrable bridge reason.

[barmar]

No other reason for the BIT should be accepted as a demonstrable bridge reason.

But the actual reason, that he'd prematurely detached a card from the suit he expected declarer to play, is surely demonstrable.

[StevenG]

And in this example, someone can and should be able to conclude that a BIT means the player has the ace

I'm actually rather curious about this assertion that nobody has challenged. My experience is that players of a certain class or better always play in tempo when they have got the ace, because they have anticipated the problem. A fumble suggests they haven't got the ace and hadn't anticipated the switch to the suit. I certainly improved the accuracy of my guesses at the table in tournament play working on this hypothesis. For players below this class, a fumble usually means nothing at all.

[manudude03]

At the point the spade is pulled out, the options are either to put the card back and replace it with a club, or knowingly revoke. The latter option violates 72B1 which is a much stricter law than 73C1, and is in itself a demonstrable bridge reason. Yes, the defender shouldn't have pulled the spade out in the first place, but the reason is understandable, and as I said way back in my initial reply, I would simply warn the offender about doing that.

 

Also, if you consider law 73C1 in context of the rest of the law book, it is implied that Law 23 doesn't automatically come into effect (if it did and Law 23 was a catchall, then it wouldn't be mentioned on many other occasions throughout the book).

[nige1]

Suppose: declarer leads towards dummy's KJx, LHO (holding the queen) pulls out one card then plays another, declarer plays dummy's king, and RHO wins with the ace.

IMO:

 

If LHO says he has a reason for his performance, conceivably the director might rule in his favour

e.g. LHO might have a known medical problem.

 

At the other extreme, the director should rarely accept an irregularity by LHO as justification

e.g. "I anticipated what declarer would do next, so I pulled a card out ready to play" doesn't cut the mustard,

 

Normally, the director should rule in favour of declarer, on the grounds that LHO could have known that his behaviour might imply that he held the ace.

 

In the general case, this would foster consistent rulings untainted by suspicion of caprice or cronyism.

[pran]

Suppose: declarer leads towards dummy's KJx, LHO (holding the queen) pulls out one card, then and plays another, declarer plays dummy's king, and RHO wins with the ace.

IMO:

 

If LHO says he has a reason for his performance, conceivably the director might rule in his favour

e.g. LHO might have a known medical problem.

 

At the other extreme, the director should rarely accept an irregularity by LHO as justification

e.g. "I anticipated what declarer would do next, so I pulled a card out ready to play" doesn't cut the mustard,

 

Normally, the director should rule in favour of declarer, on the grounds that LHO could have known that his behaviour might imply that he held the ace.

 

In the general case, this would foster consistent rulings untainted by suspicion of caprice or cronyism.

Your example is completely irrelevant for this thread.

 

Remember that (according to OP) declarer played three rounds of trumps without any hesitation and then suddenly switched to a different suit instead of pulling the last outstanding trump. Declarer knew that this trump was held by LHO, and LHO knew that Declarer knew this.

 

So this is in no way comparable to hesitating or apparently changing ones mind with a Queen to the left of KJx

[lamford]

I'm actually rather curious about this assertion that nobody has challenged. My experience is that players of a certain class or better always play in tempo when they have got the ace, because they have anticipated the problem. A fumble suggests they haven't got the ace and hadn't anticipated the switch to the suit. I certainly improved the accuracy of my guesses at the table in tournament play working on this hypothesis. For players below this class, a fumble usually means nothing at all.

Then you must play against some very unusual people who fumble without the ace but play smoothly with it. In my experience, even good players sometimes break tempo with the ace but never break tempo without it as they know they will be adjusted against. And in answer to pran, it does not matter in the slightest why the person broke tempo.

 

And you would improve your guesses even more if you play the king after a fumble and call the TD if it loses.