ChCh's clever chat

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&sn=ChCh&nn=RR&wn=MM&en=SB&w=sj5hjt865dt75ct84&n=sq86ha42daj2ckqj6&e=skthq97d98643ca92&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2cp2s(can%20be%20only%205)p4np5c(1%2F4)p6sppp]399|300[/hv]

ChCh, South, found a nice ruse to make his impossible slam at the North London Club this week. RR, North, thought that South had three key cards, and decided that grand was too ambitious and settled for a small slam. West led the jack of hearts and ChCh won in dummy and thought for a good five minutes. The TD came to the table and said "you are behind, please hurry up". ChCh replied, "Sorry, I was torn between two lines and they seemed identical." Now ChCh led the six of spades and SB, East, put in the king, necessary if South had AJ9xx but fatal here. The 0% slam rolled in.

 

SB was furious. "Why did you think for so long in a hopeless slam?" he asked. "And what were the two identical lines you saw." He ranted on. "You simulated having AJ97x when the two lines of running the queen and low to the jack are indeed identical, 16.6%, provided I always find the falsecard. You could have been aware that your remark would mislead."

 

How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

There is an alternative line, if E doesn't have ♣A, S could represent 7 spades to the J and ♣A, and lead the ♠Q in the hope E doesn't cover. This is a tight call.

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&sn=ChCh&nn=RR&wn=MM&en=SB&w=sj5hjt865dt75ct84&n=sq86ha42daj2ckqj6&e=skthq97d98643ca92&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp2cp2s(can%20be%20only%205)p4np5c(1%2F4)p6sppp]399|300[/hv]

ChCh, South, found a nice ruse to make his impossible slam at the North London Club this week. RR, North, thought that South had three key cards, and decided that grand was too ambitious and settled for a small slam. West led the jack of hearts and ChCh won in dummy and thought for a good five minutes. The TD came to the table and said "you are behind, please hurry up". ChCh replied, "Sorry, I was torn between two lines and they seemed identical." Now ChCh led the four six (?) of spades and SB, East put in the king, necessary if South had AJ9xx but fatal here. The 0% slam rolled in.

 

SB was furious. "Why did you think for so long in a hopeless slam?" he asked. "And what were the two identical lines you saw." He ranted on. "You simulated having AJ97x when the two lines of running the queen and low to the jack are indeed identical, 16.6%, provided I always find the falsecard". You could have been aware that your remark would mislead.

 

How do you rule?

I would apply Law 73E2 - period

[Cyberyeti]

I would apply Law 73E2 - period

 

73E2 requires an "opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action" if his bridge reason is choosing between two deceptive plays in a no play contract, is that not a demonstrable bridge reason ?

[Vampyr]

73E2 requires an "opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action" if his bridge reason is choosing between two deceptive plays in a no play contract, is that not a demonstrable bridge reason ?

 

Interesting question.

[lamford]

73E2 requires an "opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action" if his bridge reason is choosing between two deceptive plays in a no play contract, is that not a demonstrable bridge reason ?

I think pran's point relates to the remark, not to the variation in tempo. I don't think it can be argued that he had no bridge reason for the BIT. After all one hates to give up in hopeless contracts.

 

ChCh would argue that his remark was responding to the TD who asked him to hurry up. His two potential lines were to lead the queen and hope East did not cover from K5, which could only be correct if there were QJ8 in dummy, and could not work, and to lead low and hope East went in with the king from KT doubleton. Both are 0% in theory, but SB was lured into thinking South had AJ9xx by the remark. Tough call; of course we know ChCh set up and lured SB into his web.

[pran]

I think pran's point relates to the remark, not to the variation in tempo. I don't think it can be argued that he had no bridge reason for the BIT. After all one hates to give up in hopeless contracts.

 

ChCh would argue that his remark was responding to the TD who asked him to hurry up. His two potential lines were to lead the queen and hope East did not cover from K5, which could only be correct if there were QJ8 in dummy, and could not work, and to lead low and hope East went in with the king from KT doubleton. Both are 0% in theory, but SB was lured into thinking South had AJ9xx by the remark. Tough call; of course we know ChCh set up and lured SB into his web.

No, my point related to the excessive and unjustified delay. I accept that a player considers his alternatives, but could there be any justification for spending more than say 1 minute in this particular situation?

The remarks just aggravated the situation.

[Cyberyeti]

I think pran's point relates to the remark, not to the variation in tempo. I don't think it can be argued that he had no bridge reason for the BIT. After all one hates to give up in hopeless contracts.

 

ChCh would argue that his remark was responding to the TD who asked him to hurry up. His two potential lines were to lead the queen and hope East did not cover from K5, which could only be correct if there were QJ8 in dummy, and could not work, and to lead low and hope East went in with the king from KT doubleton. Both are 0% in theory, but SB was lured into thinking South had AJ9xx by the remark. Tough call; of course we know ChCh set up and lured SB into his web.

 

Yup, Q stands a chance in tempo (representing Jxxxxxx, Kx, Kx/KQ, Ax), but no chance after the hesitation, and working out Q stands no chance after a think doesn't take 5 mins.

[lamford]

No, my point related to the excessive and unjustified delay. I accept that a player considers his alternatives, but could there be any justification for spending more than say 1 minute in this particular situation?

The remarks just aggravated the situation.

The problem is that even if the long BIT is designed to trick SB, it is a demonstrable bridge reason, to get SB to think he has a different hand with a genuine decision. Clearly a bridge reason, albeit a devious one.

 

A different example might be when declarer has KJx in dummy and Qxx in hand and he leads towards the KJx and thinks for a while and plays the king, with the demonstrable and admitted bridge reason of deceiving the opponent that he does not have the queen, then it seems from the wording of the law that you cannot adjust:

 

If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

[axman]

No, my point related to the excessive and unjustified delay. I accept that a player considers his alternatives, but could there be any justification for spending more than say 1 minute in this particular situation?

The remarks just aggravated the situation.

 

Does the TD have the independent purview to interrupt the progress of a board in the absence of an irregularity? Say, for the current instance?

 

In the current instance the TD without invitation has stopped progress of the board to instruct the players to hurry up. Such an interruption can only prolong the time consumed and thus does not comport with the TD duty- so thus is an irregularity. If the players improperly delay there is remedy. The TD therefore best announces a reminder of the time remaining so as to avoid further delaying players about to be in time trouble.

[lamford]

Does the TD have the independent purview to interrupt the progress of a board in the absence of an irregularity? Say, for the current instance?

 

In the current instance the TD without invitation has stopped progress of the board to instruct the players to hurry up. Such an interruption can only prolong the time consumed and thus does not comport with the TD duty- so thus is an irregularity. If the players improperly delay there is remedy. The TD therefore best announces a reminder of the time remaining so as to avoid further delaying players about to be in time trouble.

It is fairly standard on BBO to chivvy slow tables, by typing in the chat, with only 2 minutes left before the move. If the hand is not completed it will be scored as Ave= and the TD has to analyse the hand or let the average stand. In live play, this is not allowed.

[smerriman]

The problem is that even if the long BIT is designed to trick SB, it is a demonstrable bridge reason, to get SB to think he has a different hand with a genuine decision. Clearly a bridge reason, albeit a devious one.

 

A different example might be when declarer has KJx in dummy and Qxx in hand and he leads towards the KJx and thinks for a while and plays the king, with the demonstrable and admitted bridge reason of deceiving the opponent that he does not have the queen, then it seems from the wording of the law that you cannot adjust:

I can't find the specific ruling - just references to it acting as a precedent - but the ACBL ruled a long time ago that a hesitation regarding how to best deceive an opponent was not considered a demonstrable bridge reason.

 

Edit - case 8.

[blackshoe]

Does the TD have the independent purview to interrupt the progress of a board in the absence of an irregularity? Say, for the current instance?

 

In the current instance the TD without invitation has stopped progress of the board to instruct the players to hurry up. Such an interruption can only prolong the time consumed and thus does not comport with the TD duty- so thus is an irregularity. If the players improperly delay there is remedy. The TD therefore best announces a reminder of the time remaining so as to avoid further delaying players about to be in time trouble.

Yes.

Law 81B1: The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament.

Law 81C1: The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following: to maintain discipline and to ensure the orderly progress of the game.

[lamford]

I can't find the specific ruling - just references to it acting as a precedent - but the ACBL ruled a long time ago that a hesitation regarding how to best deceive an opponent was not considered a demonstrable bridge reason.

 

Edit - case 8.

An interesting case, and plenty of dissent among the panel there. The panel thought overall that this was a particularly sensitive situation in that a delay in choosing among equals could deceive. They were in effect adjusting under 73D1:

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

 

Here, the delay, and remark, are designed to deceive an opponent that one has a different hand to the one held. That would seem to be a demonstrable bridge reason.

[pran]

An interesting case, and plenty of dissent among the panel there. The panel thought overall that this was a particularly sensitive situation in that a delay in choosing among equals could deceive. They were in effect adjusting under 73D1:

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

 

Here, the delay, and remark, are designed to deceive an opponent that one has a different hand to the one held. That would seem to be a demonstrable bridge reason.

I noticed that the case discusssed by the panel was about a hesitation of just 15 seconds.

 

In our case here the question concerne a delay of (at least) 5 minutes.

 

There certainly is a difference!

[lamford]

I noticed that the case discusssed by the panel was about a hesitation of just 15 seconds.

 

In our case here the question concerne a delay of (at least) 5 minutes.

 

There certainly is a difference!

There is. But it took me longer than 5 minutes to find a plausible line of play which was not 0%. On some hands World Champions have taken 10 minutes to work out the right line.

[pran]

There is. But it took me longer than 5 minutes to find a plausible line of play which was not 0%. On some hands World Champions have taken 10 minutes to work out the right line.

Would you have expected him to cover with his King if you had led the six in tempo from Q86 in Dummy?

 

If not then I would rule that you probably misled your opponent in breach of Law 73E2.

[lamford]

Would you have expected him to cover with his King if you had led the six in tempo from Q86 in Dummy?

 

If not then I would rule that you probably misled your opponent in breach of Law 73E2.

Declarer is entitled to think about the hand until he has formed a plan.

[pescetom]

Here, the delay, and remark, are designed to deceive an opponent that one has a different hand to the one held. That would seem to be a demonstrable bridge reason.

 

Law 71E says:

1. A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not emphasized by unwonted haste or hesitancy, nor protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

 

Delay (unwonted hesitancy) and remark do not seem contemplated as appropriate means to deceive an opponent, which coincides with my idea of bridge.

[lamford]

Law 71E says:

1. A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the deception is not emphasized by unwonted haste or hesitancy, nor protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

 

Delay (unwonted hesitancy) and remark do not seem contemplated as appropriate means to deceive an opponent, which coincides with my idea of bridge.

ChCh argues that the delay was not unwonted. It is usual to spend as much time as one needs to think of a way to make the contract.

[barmar]

The problem is that even if the long BIT is designed to trick SB, it is a demonstrable bridge reason, to get SB to think he has a different hand with a genuine decision. Clearly a bridge reason, albeit a devious one.

The Law specifically says that you may not try to deceive an opponent by varying tempo, so this is not a valid reason, even if you can argue that it's a "bridge" reason. A "demonstrable bridge reason" means making a decision about your bridge action.

[barmar]

ChCh argues that the delay was not unwonted. It is usual to spend as much time as one needs to think of a way to make the contract.

And bridge regulators generally allow both declarer and defenders to think for extended periods at trick 1, to plan the hand after dummy comes down. If there's actually a difficult problem, they shouldn't have to concern themselves as well with whether an opponent will take an incorrect inference from their planning time.

 

I think this is clearly a case of SB making an inference at his own risk.

[pran]

And bridge regulators generally allow both declarer and defenders to think for extended periods at trick 1, to plan the hand after dummy comes down. If there's actually a difficult problem, they shouldn't have to concern themselves as well with whether an opponent will take an incorrect inference from their planning time.

 

I think this is clearly a case of SB making an inference at his own risk.

But Declarer wasn't thinking when Dummy was faced at trick 1 (which would have been perfectly legal) - he was thinking at trick 2! That is a major difference.

[lamford]

The Law specifically says that you may not try to deceive an opponent by varying tempo, so this is not a valid reason, even if you can argue that it's a "bridge" reason. A "demonstrable bridge reason" means making a decision about your bridge action.

That Law says "may not" which is the weakest of "may not", "shall not" and "must not". And the delay was considering whether to lead the six of spades or the queen of spades. Or even to win in hand and lead a low spade. All demonstrable bridge reasons. I can live with ruling that the comment was a breach of Law 73, but not with the time taken to plan the hand. If he had taken five minutes and then led the six of spades without a comment, I would not adjust. The fact that taking five minutes deceived the opponent into thinking the contract had a chance is irrelevant.

[pran]

But Declarer wasn't thinking when Dummy was faced at trick 1 (which would have been perfectly legal) - he was thinking at trick 2! That is a major difference.

 

 

That Law says "may not" which is the weakest of "may not", "shall not" and "must not". And the delay was considering whether to lead the six of spades or the queen of spades. Or even to win in hand and lead a low spade. All demonstrable bridge reasons. I can live with ruling that the comment was a breach of Law 73, but not with the time taken to plan the hand. If he had taken five minutes and then led the six of spades without a comment, I would not adjust. The fact that taking five minutes deceived the opponent into thinking the contract had a chance is irrelevant.

 

I do indeed wonder how you read (and understand) the laws?

“must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.