ChCh's clever chat

[lamford]

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

It seems strange that may not is stronger than shall not, when "may" is less strong than "shall".

 

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not) “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

 

And can you show me where in the Laws it says declarer must think before playing from dummy rather than after trick one?

 

Also, there is no evidence that the tempo break is for the purpose of deceiving. Furthermore, the play of a low spade from dummy is not deceptive. The ONLY issue, for me, is the remark. Establishing that the slow play is with intent to deceive is impossible.

[pran]

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

It seems strange that may not is stronger than shall not, when "may" is less strong than "shall".

The reason is of course that 'may' implies (for instance legal) permission so 'may not' implies just the opposite, i.e. prohibition.

The practical consequence is that while a violation of a 'must not' clause almost certainly will result in a procedure penalty, a violation of a 'may not' clause more often than not will result in such penalty.

 

 

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised) “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),”shall” do (a violation will incur a penalty more often than not) “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”.

I am glad to see that you have discovered this.

 

And can you show me where in the Laws it says declarer must think before playing from dummy rather than after trick one?

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and

without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory

pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

I believe the first lesson to any newcomer in Bridge includes the importance of planning the play before playing to the first trick.

Frankly, I was genuinly surprised now when discovering that this is explicitly considered in the Laws, it is simply common knowledge.

 

Also, there is no evidence that the tempo break is for the purpose of deceiving. Furthermore, the play of a low spade from dummy is not deceptive. The ONLY issue, for me, is the remark. Establishing that the slow play is with intent to deceive is impossible.

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

(my enhancement)

 

There is no question of evidence (of guilt) here, it is up to the player who may have violated Law 73E to convince the Director that he had no such illegal intent in mind.

[lamford]

I believe the first lesson to any newcomer in Bridge includes the importance of planning the play before playing to the first trick.

I am not aware of the Regulatory Authority, which would be the EBU, requiring a pause at trick one. The White Book does indicate that a pause by the third hand when declarer does not pause will not normally give UI, even with a singleton.

 

But this is very different. If you say that anyone taking five minutes over a hand is doing it to deceive, then I think the onus is on the defender to show why he was deceived, not the declarer. And the director must decide that there was no demonstrable bridge reason to think about the whole hand; I don't think any TD will decide that. The fact that he played quickly at trick one is irrelevant.

[pran]

I am not aware of the Regulatory Authority, which would be the EBU, requiring a pause at trick one.

Nor was I.

 

But I am most familiar with the custom (and indeed recommendation) to spend whatever time needed for planning the play before playing any card to trick one.

 

(And we still emphasize the important difference between time (honestly) needed for planning and time spent for deception.)

[blackshoe]

I think the onus is on the defender to show why he was deceived, not the declarer

o·nus | ˈōnəs |

noun (usually as the onus)

used to refer to something that is one's duty or responsibility: the onus is on you to show that you have suffered loss.

 

The Laws of Bridge place no onus on any player to prove anything. The onus is on the director to determine the facts and to rule accordingly (Law 84) or if he cannot determine the facts to make a ruling that will permit play to continue (Law 85).

[pran]

o·nus | ˈōnəs |

noun (usually as the onus)

used to refer to something that is one's duty or responsibility: the onus is on you to show that you have suffered loss.

 

The Laws of Bridge place no onus on any player to prove anything. The onus is on the director to determine the facts and to rule accordingly (Law 84) or if he cannot determine the facts to make a ruling that will permit play to continue (Law 85).

 

There was obviously a disagreement here whether or not Law 73D2 was violated, and more specific if Law 73E2 was applicable.

 

In order to rule on this question the Director must hear the (alleged) offender's explanation on what demonstrable bridge reason he had for for his action and the resulting delay in his play.

 

This explanation will obviously be the most important item for the Director when he shall decide whether or not to apply Law 73E2.

 

We have been told that the actual delay was at least 5 minutes, this is usually a rather substantial 'pause for thought' and I would expect a very convincing explanation why I should not rule that the player 'could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit'

 

It is not the duty of the Director once we are past Law 73D to show evidence that law 73E2 is applicable. it is the duty of the (alleged) offender with his explanation to convince the Director that he had a demonstrable bridge reason for his action.

[lamford]

In order to rule on this question the Director must hear the (alleged) offender's explanation on what demonstrable bridge reason he had for for his action and the resulting delay in his play.

Charlie the Chimp was well-prepared. He answered that his delay was because he could not find any layout where the slam would succeed and he therefore needed a psychological line. His two candidates were low to the queen of spades and running the queen of spades. But he rejected both as that would need the opponents to play him for seven spades and to duck from Kx. Eventually, after five minutes, he spotted an idea that he could lead a low spade from dummy and if East had KT doubleton he might put in the king.

[blackshoe]

A duty is a legal or moral obligation. Sure it's in a player's best interest to present the most convincing argument he can for whatever position he thinks is right - but that doesn't mean he has a duty to do so. If he did, the law would explicitly say so.

[pran]

Charlie the Chimp was well-prepared. He answered that his delay was because he could not find any layout where the slam would succeed and he therefore needed a psychological line. His two candidates were low to the queen of spades and running the queen of spades. But he rejected both as that would need the opponents to play him for seven spades and to duck from Kx. Eventually, after five minutes, he spotted an idea that he could lead a low spade from dummy and if East had KT doubleton he might put in the king.

So Charlie the Chimp reserves for himslf the privilege to try deceving his opponents by varying his tempo for no other reason? I shall consider that a self-incriminating statement.

[pran]

A duty is a legal or moral obligation. Sure it's in a player's best interest to present the most convincing argument he can for whatever position he thinks is right - but that doesn't mean he has a duty to do so. If he did, the law would explicitly say so.

He may of course say whatever he likes, but it should be in his own interest to present a credible statement. Depending on the circumstances that will usually mean a truthful statement.

[sanst]

I believe the first lesson to any newcomer in Bridge includes the importance of planning the play before playing to the first trick.

Frankly, I was genuinly surprised now when discovering that this is explicitly considered in the Laws, it is simply common knowledge.

Believe me, there’s a lot more and even more important things you learn a newcomer. Some don’t even know the names of the suits :D

Many players, and I’m one of them, figure out a line of play at trick one. But I don’t consider all possibilities at that point. It would take far to long. Yesterday I was in 4♥ holding five hearts and three in the dummy. I won trick one, played a high heart from the dummy and discovered that my RHO held the five missing ones. Before playing the next trick I took quite some time to work out a plan how to make the contract or, if failing to do so, how to limit the damage. But you seem to demand that I did this at trick one.

I don’t know whether you know the name Bauke Muller, one of the Dutch top players who twice won the Bermuda Bowl. He is quite notorious for extremely long pauses for thought, twenty minutes is no exception, and reacting quite angrily when pushed for action. That can happen in the middle of the play. Are you seriously telling that the TD should spur him on?

[pescetom]

I don’t know whether you know the name Bauke Muller, one of the Dutch top players who twice won the Bermuda Bowl. He is quite notorious for extremely long pauses for thought, twenty minutes is no exception, and reacting quite angrily when pushed for action. That can happen in the middle of the play. Are you seriously telling that the TD should spur him on?

Something should spur him on, if bridge wants to survive as a credible mind game. Chess uses a clock.

[pran]

Believe me, there’s a lot more and even more important things you learn a newcomer. Some don’t even know the names of the suits :D

Many players, and I’m one of them, figure out a line of play at trick one. But I don’t consider all possibilities at that point. It would take far to long. Yesterday I was in 4♥ holding five hearts and three in the dummy. I won trick one, played a high heart from the dummy and discovered that my RHO held the five missing ones. Before playing the next trick I took quite some time to work out a plan how to make the contract or, if failing to do so, how to limit the damage. But you seem to demand that I did this at trick one.

I don’t know whether you know the name Bauke Muller, one of the Dutch top players who twice won the Bermuda Bowl. He is quite notorious for extremely long pauses for thought, twenty minutes is no exception, and reacting quite angrily when pushed for action. That can happen in the middle of the play. Are you seriously telling that the TD should spur him on?

Discovering special features about the deal during the play will of course establish a demonstrably valid bridge reason for further considerations. I trust that you should have no problem explaining this to the Director if asked?

 

ChCh's situation does not fit this at all. First he knew about his problem before playing from Dummy to trick 1, and more important he apparently argued that his bridge reason was to deceive opponents by illegally varying his tempo.

 

How the situation at Bermuda Bowl should be handled is mainly a question of regulations and Conditions of Contest.

[pilowsky]

There is a widespread belief amongst some Bridge players - who obviously know nothing about "theory of mind" - that it is possible to tell what a person is thinking from the duration of their pauses.

You find these stories in a book by a Bridge Humorist because they are stories. They have no basis in reality.

If you are the sort of person that feels that you can draw inferences from the amount of time a person takes before playing a card, then you are mistaken.

It is, of course, possible for players who have a great sense of timing to develop a system where the duration of a pause does mean something.

Such pairs will be quickly detected using standard detection techniques. If this is not possible, then they aren't cheating.

Asking a bystander who wasn't there to guess about the meaning of something they didn't see is a bit like asking a basketball to eat with a knife and fork.

You can go through the motions but in the end, you will be waist-deep in mixed metaphors.

 

 

 

[pran]

There is a widespread belief amongst some Bridge players - who obviously know nothing about "theory of mind" - that it is possible to tell what a person is thinking from the duration of their pauses.

You find these stories in a book by a Bridge Humorist because they are stories. They have no basis in reality.

If you are the sort of person that feels that you can draw inferences from the amount of time a person takes before playing a card, then you are mistaken.

It is, of course, possible for players who have a great sense of timing to develop a system where the duration of a pause does mean something.

Such pairs will be quickly detected using standard detection techniques. If this is not possible, then they aren't cheating.

Asking a bystander who wasn't there to guess about the meaning of something they didn't see is a bit like asking a basketball to eat with a knife and fork.

You can go through the motions but in the end, you will be waist-deep in mixed metaphors.

What about letting the player in question explain his delay (if it was excessive)?

[pilowsky]

What about letting the player in question explain his delay (if it was excessive)?

 

It doesn't matter what the player says.

You can't infer anything from it one way or another.

People can say anything.

It only matters if there is an actual understanding based on the delay/scowl/toe-tap/coffee sip.

In which case, again, statistical or other methods may reveal a pattern.

 

Suppose you are asked to come to a table, and someone complains that an opponent picks up his coffee cup every time he wants his partner to lead a card from a suit that is different from the one originally led?

Now what?

The whole concept of awarding penalties on this basis is bonkers. It's as if Lewis Carroll wrote the Trial.

 

How about this for a test.

When someone suggests that a delay has a specific meaning, ask yourself what the possible specific meanings might be.

Make a list of all of these meanings (I can think of at least 10 immediately).

When you finish you'll be asleep and the problem is solved.

[pran]

What about letting the player in question explain his delay (if it was excessive)?

 

It doesn't matter what the player says.

........................

 

Scaring.

 

That was the typical culture in (for instance) Nazi Germany, I hoped never to experience it again.

[blackshoe]

Anyone can draw inferences from just about anything. The question is whether the conclusion to which those inferences lead is correct — and I would agree that a bridge player who thinks he can correctly infer what is going on from the length of an opponent's "thinking time" is almost certainly wrong.

[sanst]

It doesn't matter what the player says.

That’s downright ridiculous. A TD should establish the facts before deciding. Amongst those facts is the reason why the player did what he did. Whether you’re convinced or not, is something totally different, but you certainly should use the information when deciding. You’re stance seems to be “I don’t care what they say, shoot them anyway”.

[pilowsky]

That's downright ridiculous. A TD should establish the facts before deciding. Amongst those facts is the reason why the player did what he did. Whether you're convinced or not, is something totally different, but you certainly should use the information when deciding. You're stance seems to be "I don't care what they say, shoot them anyway".

 

First, you say it's ridiculous.

Then you say the TD should establish the facts.

Then you say that to establish the 'facts', the TD should ask the player for a reason.

In what parallel universe (outside one populated by Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell) would a "reason" provided by a player in this situation be termed a "fact".

Is that like "A lot of people are saying that it's a terrible thing" is a "fact"?

Now, who's being ridiculous?

Where did you get this notion that things people tell you are "facts"?

My stance is that a "reason" provided by a bridge player is not a "fact".

Why do you think that electronic line detectors were introduced into tennis (and video referees into many other sports)?

Probably because they did not think that utterances from John McEnroe constituted what you would call "facts".

[pran]

What a person says is a fact, namely a fact of what he said (and the fact that he did say it).

 

whether what he said is true or false is a different question and (if necessary) up to the Director to judge.

[pilowsky]

You are right and wrong at the same time.

It is a 'fact' that someone says something.

After that, you run into murky territory.

Go back to the start and answer the question - in your own mind - of all the possible reasons why a person may take a certain amount of time to do - or not do something.

The whole idea that a third party - who was not present at the time - can infer anything from a pause is madness.

Maybe you've never been to Minnesota or seen a Pinter play.

It's just magical thinking to believe that you can see into the state of mind of anyone.

Outside a Bridge Club, I have never heard of the concept of "Directors" who can tell what you are thinking by the amount of time you take to think.

No surprise that it's a relatively unpopular game.

If you want people to spend less time thinking, put a clock on them as they do in Chess - a much more popular sport.

I hope the Italians beat the English next week - that's what I'm thinking.

[sanst]

You are right and wrong at the same time.

It is a 'fact' that someone says something.

After that, you run into murky territory.

Go back to the start and answer the question - in your own mind - of all the possible reasons why a person may take a certain amount of time to do - or not do something.

The whole idea that a third party - who was not present at the time - can infer anything from a pause is madness.

Maybe you've never been to Minnesota or seen a Pinter play.

It's just magical thinking to believe that you can see into the state of mind of anyone.

Outside a Bridge Club, I have never heard of the concept of "Directors" who can tell what you are thinking by the amount of time you take to think.

No surprise that it's a relatively unpopular game.

If you want people to spend less time thinking, put a clock on them as they do in Chess - a much more popular sport.

I hope the Italians beat the English next week - that's what I'm thinking.

Your first sentence applies to your reasoning too. No director claims to be able to establish what a player was thinking when he did what he did. But back to the case in hand: the director should establish whether the player, ChCh, had a bridge reason to think as long as he did. Therefore he should ask the player why there was a pause. After that the TD decides whether or not the reason was a valid one. You don’t believe the player ‘on his blue eyes’ as we say in Dutch, but you can’t dismiss his answer out of hand.

You seem to miss a basic concept of bridge, namely that it is a MIND game. That makes it essentially different from physical sports, where the director, referee, umpire and the like are supposed to see what happens. In bridge thinking is essential to game and should be taken into consideration if necessary.

I don’t know about Australia, but here judges ask suspects what they were thinking when they are on trial. And they take that into consideration when establishing innocence or guilt - no juries overhere - and when sentencing. They don’t claim to be able to read the mind of the suspect either or to decide what he told was the truth.

[pran]

If you want people to spend less time thinking, put a clock on them as they do in Chess - a much more popular sport.

As it happened several years ago I was directing a regional championship where we needed to be rather strict on the schedule: 8 boards per round for 7 rounds to be completed in one day.

 

So clearly visible for everybody in the room we had an overhead projector continuously displaying a timer counting down (each round) from 60 minutes to zero.

 

And the message to the players was clear: Penalty points will automatically be applied to both sides on any single board that was not reccorded in the electronic scoring system as completed within the 60 minutes allotted time.

 

(In order to avoid penalty for opponents' slow play the pair must have called the director {me} at the time of any threatening delay).

 

Result? Great satisfaction, no complaints, and the entire (all-day) event was completed on schedule.

[pilowsky]

As it happened several years ago I was directing a regional championship where we needed to be rather strict on the schedule: 8 boards per round for 7 rounds to be completed in one day.

 

So clearly visible for everybody in the room we had an overhead projector continuously displaying a timer counting down (each round) from 60 minutes to zero.

 

And the message to the players was clear: Penalty points will automatically be applied to both sides on any single board that was not reccorded in the electronic scoring system as completed within the 60 minutes allotted time.

 

(In order to avoid penalty for opponents' slow play the pair must have called the director {me} at the time of any threatening delay).

 

Result? Great satisfaction, no complaints, and the entire (all-day) event was completed on schedule.

 

QED