[OleBerg]

Inspired by the topic "Appeal 2" I am seeking an answer, I hope you can help me with. I prefer a new thread prior to a hijack.

Law 73D1 says:

"D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. 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. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner
in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.
Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk."

Law 73F says:

"F. Violation of Proprieties
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 (see Law 12C)."


My initial question is:

If there is such damage, can the innocent side be compensated?

Well, I've asked it before (otherwhere), and have been told they can. Furthermore, this link:

http://web2.acbl.org...books/98orl.pdf

indicates that in 1998 they could. So feel free to skip this first step.


My real question is:

What does the last five words ("and at his own risk") in 73D1 mean?
How much different would we handle such situations, if those five words were removed, and we simply made a period after the word "opponent"?

[FrancesHinden]

OleBerg, on Aug 1 2009, 07:30 AM, said:

My real question is:

What does the last five words ("and at his own risk") in 73D1 mean?

If an opponent varies tempo, you can take advantage if you want - but you generally have no recourse if you were wrong about why he varied tempo.

If he hesitated/speeded up with no demonstrable bridge reason, then you will get a ruling in your favour.

However, if he had a good reason to think about something but it was just something other than what you guessed, then you are stuck with your result. This happens both in the auction and the play, although more often in the former.

There is some precedent that the following are not (always) considered demonstrable bridge reasons:
- I was deciding whether to give count or not
- I was deciding whether to play a false card or not
- I was deciding what to play to the next trick

While thinking at trick 1 is always considered a bridge reason (although excessive thinking at trick 1 may be considered to give UI)

[bluejak]

Putting it simply, if the opponent has no reason to break tempo you can expect an adjustment.

If the opponent has a reason to break tempo and you misguessed what his reason was, hard luck!

[helene_t]

This is new to me. I was always told that if opp was thinking about what to have for dinner and you thought he was thinking about something related to the current hand, there would be no basis for adjustment. Of course a deliberate BIT in order to mislead opps is a severe infraction.

Is this a new law?

At most local clubs, I think it is unrealistic to expect a consistent tempo. Too much noise, too many non-serious players who think more about the previous board than the current one (or who think about the Christmas decorations in the club room), too many elderly players with periodic mental lapses related to blood sugar fluctuations etc. When I started playing bridge I was taught to exploit BITs by taking two-way finesses but I don't do that anymore. It annoys opps when it works, and I am not sure if it works more often than not.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

This is new to me. I was always told that if opp was thinking about what to have for dinner and you thought he was thinking about something related to the current hand, there would be no basis for adjustment. Of course a deliberate BIT in order to mislead opps is a severe infraction.

I think this would be considered an offense, under law 74 'paying insufficient attention to the game' Was it a director or other players who told you this isnt an offense?

[helene_t]

jillybean, on Aug 1 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

This is new to me. I was always told that if opp was thinking about what to have for dinner and you thought he was thinking about something related to the current hand, there would be no basis for adjustment. Of course a deliberate BIT in order to mislead opps is a severe infraction.

I think this would be considered an offense, under law 74 'paying insufficient attention to the game' Was it a director or other players who told you this isnt an offense?

It comes up on a regular basis in the Dutch BF magazine, usually in the law section.

Nobody is saying it is good behavior to tank because of a tough decision about what to have for dinner, just that it isn't a basis for an adjustment. I suppose under law 74 it could lead to a procedural penalty.

[jillybean]

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 1 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

This is new to me. I was always told that if opp was thinking about what to have for dinner and you thought he was thinking about something related to the current hand, there would be no basis for adjustment. Of course a deliberate BIT in order to mislead opps is a severe infraction.

I think this would be considered an offense, under law 74 'paying insufficient attention to the game' Was it a director or other players who told you this isnt an offense?

It comes up on a regular basis in the Dutch BF magazine, usually in the law section.

Nobody is saying it is good behavior to tank because of a tough decision about what to have for dinner, just that it isn't a basis for an adjustment. I suppose under law 74 it could lead to a procedural penalty.

And if I understand correctly, an adjustment if the break in tempo could have caused you to bid/play differently. The player has no bridge reason to break tempo.

Is this where the no's can have a 'double shot'? If an illegal BIT could suggest finessing one player and the finesse is wrong, the no's can claim damage?

[barmar]

jillybean, on Aug 1 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

jillybean, on Aug 1 2009, 09:24 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

This is new to me. I was always told that if opp was thinking about what to have for dinner and you thought he was thinking about something related to the current hand, there would be no basis for adjustment. Of course a deliberate BIT in order to mislead opps is a severe infraction.

I think this would be considered an offense, under law 74 'paying insufficient attention to the game' Was it a director or other players who told you this isnt an offense?

It comes up on a regular basis in the Dutch BF magazine, usually in the law section.

Nobody is saying it is good behavior to tank because of a tough decision about what to have for dinner, just that it isn't a basis for an adjustment. I suppose under law 74 it could lead to a procedural penalty.

And if I understand correctly, an adjustment if the break in tempo could have caused you to bid/play differently. The player has no bridge reason to break tempo.

Is this where the no's can have a 'double shot'? If an illegal BIT could suggest finessing one player and the finesse is wrong, the no's can claim damage?

It could be a violation of 73F, if the player could have known that the BIT would cause the opponent to misplay. In this case it doesn't matter why he hesitated.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

This is new to me. I was always told that if opp was thinking about what to have for dinner and you thought he was thinking about something related to the current hand, there would be no basis for adjustment. Of course a deliberate BIT in order to mislead opps is a severe infraction.

You have been told wrong. The Law book is quite specific. Probably the most important sentence in the whole of Law 73 - which is often not realised by many people who read this Law - is:

Law 73D1 Sentence #2 said:

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

When someone thinks about dinner in a particular situation where it might be reasonably expected he had some doubt about hsi call or play then this sentence has been breached because he has not taken the required amount of care and Law 73F comes in to play and an adjustment is often made.

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

Is this a new law?

No, this Law has been unchanged for a long time.

helene_t, on Aug 1 2009, 09:00 PM, said:

At most local clubs, I think it is unrealistic to expect a consistent tempo. Too much noise, too many non-serious players who think more about the previous board than the current one (or who think about the Christmas decorations in the club room), too many elderly players with periodic mental lapses related to blood sugar fluctuations etc. When I started playing bridge I was taught to exploit BITs by taking two-way finesses but I don't do that anymore. It annoys opps when it works, and I am not sure if it works more often than not.

Any competent TD tkes into account everything such as the abilities of players, their general demeanour and so on. There is no doubt that Law 73F woudl not often be applie din a club. But there are still some situations where it might be. And if a player takes time for some reason unconected with his hand in such a situation an ethical and knowledgeable player will always issue a disclaimer, eg: "Sorry, I was not thinking about the hand".