[drinbrasil]

---

South need make 6 tricks from this suit to win 3NT.

West lead clubs 4th card, and dummy (north) has 9xx and South Ax. East playe 8 and back with J, West showing possibloe 5 cards. So diamonds is crucial.

In this moment South played the ♦5 from hand but West delayed to play, and like after 30 seconds played the Q. South then played the K from dummy and return with 10, not covered by East and played the Ace. West played off one spade, South asked director for 3NT saying West cant think with singleton.

Facts: West not saw the card played by South, thats why he delayed to play, when he saw, he played the Q and said "sorry" but only dummy heard it.

Director changed 3NT-1 to 3NT=.

E-W made apellation.

Denied. 3NT stands.

Whats your opinion about this incident?

[peachy]

Ruling is correct. West broke tempo with no legal bridge reason for the tempo break, thus misleading declarer and causing damage.

Even if West's _intention_ was not to mislead, there is no cause to investigate the intentions as there is no other evidence than self-serving statement available to discover. TD rulings are based on substantiated facts.

[jillybean]

The facts given indicate the break in tempo was accidental. I’d want more evidence before ruling the BIT was intentional and awarding an adjusted score.

73D
1. Inadvertent Variations
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady
tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly
careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their
side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a
call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety,
but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by
an opponent, and at his own risk.

2. Intentional Variations
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or
gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating
before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is
made.

If you decide the BIT was intentional you must award an adjusted score.

73F2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception
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 (see Law 12C),

Im not clear if a bit that does not have a 'demonstrable bridge reason' is automatically deemed an intentional variation.

[JoAnneM]

Any good detective will tell you "there are no coincidences". So, west has his suit all set up and that just happens to be the time that he doesn't notice that declarer has led a card. There are a few people in my club that I might give that to. One is blind and we have to tell her when a card is led and what it is, and then we aren't always sure what is going to happen (but we love her), and the other one pays little attention to the game and was probably thinking about her cats. Everyone else, no way.

[jdonn]

I hate awarding these contracts to the declarer, whatever the laws do or don't say. The best way to punish shady people (not that west was, in fact it seems very likely he wasn't) is for declarers to just realize a person with QJ would NEVER hesitate there! The hesitation is an absolute dead giveaway of singleton Q at the point where declarer has to guess.

[Phil]

There's a few that I play against in my club that are notorious for this type of BS. If you call them on it, they just pretend they were distracted and were thinking about something else.

As Josh says, they also rapid Q the from QJ too. I've also noticed that they tank when choosing which card to win from AKQ as well.

[drinbrasil]

JoAnneM, on Apr 9 2009, 05:18 AM, said:

Any good detective will tell you "there are no coincidences". So, west has his suit all set up and that just happens to be the time that he doesn't notice that declarer has led a card. There are a few people in my club that I might give that to. One is blind and we have to tell her when a card is led and what it is, and then we aren't always sure what is going to happen (but we love her), and the other one pays little attention to the game and was probably thinking about her cats. Everyone else, no way.

just FYI, game was with screens, and card really could not be seen. Anyway i was told maybe South had to ask director after Q played. i am really not sure about this case...

[Trinidad]

drinbrasil, on Apr 9 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

just FYI, game was with screens, and card really could not be seen. Anyway i was told maybe South had to ask director after Q played. i am really not sure about this case...

If West couldn't see that the card was played because it was blocked by the screen, then that changes the matter. Then West has an easy to prove bridge reason for the delay.

But weren't West and South sitting on the same side of the screen?

Rik

[jillybean]

Is this a law where you are guilty unless proven innocent? Thus making any break in tempo from stiff Q, QJ etc deemed as an intentional variation or can the TD rule it was inadvertent?

[blackshoe]

What Law 73F2 actually says is this:

If a player broke tempo AND he has no demonstrable bridge reason for having done so AND he could have known at the time that the BIT might work to his benefit (IOW, that the opponents might draw a false inference from the BIT) THEN the TD shall award an adjusted score. The intent of the player who broke tempo is irrelevant

So the TD has to determine {a} whether there was a BIT, {b} whether the player who broke tempo had no demonstrable bridge reason for doing so, and {c} whether he could have known (NB: not "did know") at the time that the BIT might work to his benefit. If all those things are true, TD adjusts the score per Law 12C. In this case, it seems clear that {a} and {b} are true, so the hard one is {c}. But the player's intent has no bearing on the ruling. Well, unless he gives evidence leading to a ruling of violation of Law 73D2. That should result not only in a score adjustment, but also in a large penalty.

[Codo]

I don't get why "b" should be true. Not to see a card behind a screen is an obviously acceptable reason.
Besides this: I have yet to find someone who plays in an event where there use screens (so it is not the blind woman from your local club) and tries to cheat with a 30 second break with a singelton queen of diamonds. This is plain silly.

[Tomi2]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2009, 01:25 AM, said:

I hate awarding these contracts to the declarer, whatever the laws do or don't say. The best way to punish shady people (not that west was, in fact it seems very likely he wasn't) is for declarers to just realize a person with QJ would NEVER hesitate there! The hesitation is an absolute dead giveaway of singleton Q at the point where declarer has to guess.

100% agree to this, finesse + appeal is a terrible double shot, and if i could invent rules and be TD then i would let the score stand and give declarer some penalty for not respecting the game or so

[blackshoe]

Codo, on Apr 20 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

I don't get why "b" should be true. Not to see a card behind a screen is an obviously acceptable reason.

Um. Never having played behind screens, I may have it wrong, but I think West and South are on the same side of the screen. So in considering whether West saw South's card, the argument "it was behind screens" doesn't hold water.

I will grant you that players don't typically cheat, but this isn't about cheating. That's why the law says "could have known" rather than "did know".

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 20 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Codo, on Apr 20 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

I don't get why "b" should be true.  Not to see a card behind a screen is an obviously acceptable reason.

Um. Never having played behind screens, I may have it wrong, but I think West and South are on the same side of the screen. So in considering whether West saw South's card, the argument "it was behind screens" doesn't hold water.

I will grant you that players don't typically cheat, but this isn't about cheating. That's why the law says "could have known" rather than "did know".

I know you can find us a law that says the cards must be played such that the opponents can see them...

[skjaeran]

Strange screen position if west and south were on opposite sides. Guess the OP had the directions wrong.

As a TD or AC I'd not change the score in these circumstances. If declarer isn't able to play a card in a position where it can be seen by an opponent on the other side of the screen, that's his own responsibility.

Besides, as mentioned by others, who would be thinking with QJ tight?