[bluejak]

The story I remember is that a female international was playing in our top event, the Spring Foursomes [since renamed the Schapiro Spring Foursomes]. She was playing some suit like AKQxx opposite xx, ace, all follow, king, all follow, queen, RHO follows, she discards, LHO thinks for a long, long time. Then he follows with the thirteenth card!

Of course this could not mislead, but she lost her temper completely, called the TD, getting an excellent TD, who said there was no case to answer. Having shouted at everyone impartially including the TD she demanded to see his boss and duly got Max Bavin. Naturally he agreed with his TD, and she told him that in a a proper event with proper international TDs she would have got a proper ruling. As the World Chief TD Max could think of nothing to say!!!!!

While all this was going on, her RHO, who is very close to one of the frequent posters here, was out in the passageway laughing. I asked her what was funny. She said that play was suspended at her table because one of the players was shouting and swearing, and, amazingly, it was not her partner, who had a long history of such things!

[barmar]

OK, so hesitating with a singleton isn't ALWAYS deceptive. Several posts have given examples where declarer has the count of the suit, and knows that the card has to be a singleton. Hesitations before playing this card can never mislead. Maybe if declarer has miscounted, but there's no way that a defender can anticipate this. In fact, perhaps it's inappropriate to hesitate even in this situation, since it might cause declarer to think that he miscounted (perhaps he didn't notice a discard by the other opponent on an earlier trick).

But if the player could possibly hold more than one card in the suit, but actually only holds one, it's misleading to hesitate before following suit. Even if there would never be any reason to consider playing one of the other cards he could hold, the fact remains that with a singleton you have absolutely nothing to think about, so there's no bridge reason to delay. Getting distracted is not a bridge reason. Planning ahead is a possible bridge reason, but there's no reason it has to be done before playing to this trick, so it doesn't excuse it.

I'm definitely not a big fan of "Sorry, I have nothing to think about." types of comments. Does that mean that if you don't say it, declarer can reasonably assume you DO have something to think about? And the comment, or lack of comment, is UI to his partner, so he's putting him in an ethical dilemma. So to avoid problems, you either never say this or say it ALWAYS, but in the latter case it's meaningless because you're required to lie sometimes. I know some players who like to say, "I'm thinking about the whole hand" when they hesitate at trick 1; again, this should be unnecessary, as players are expected to think about the hand at that time.

Not really apropos to this, the comment that really bugs me is when players say that they're still sorting their cards, to explain why they haven't bid yet. I have eyes, I can see what they're doing.

[Blue Uriah]

bluejak, on Oct 22 2009, 01:48 AM, said:

The story I remember is that a female international was playing in our top event, the Spring Foursomes [since renamed the Schapiro Spring Foursomes].  She was playing some suit like  AKQxx opposite xx, ace, all follow, king, all follow, queen, RHO follows, she discards, LHO thinks for a long, long time.  Then he follows with the thirteenth card!

Of course this could not mislead, but she lost her temper completely, called the TD, getting an excellent TD, who said there was no case to answer.  Having shouted at everyone impartially including the TD she demanded to see his boss and duly got Max Bavin.  Naturally he agreed with his TD, and she told him that in a a proper event with proper international TDs she would have got a proper ruling.  As the World Chief TD Max could think of nothing to say!!!!!

While all this was going on, her RHO, who is very close to one of the frequent posters here, was out in the passageway laughing.  I asked her what was funny.  She said that play was suspended at her table because one of the players was shouting and swearing, and, amazingly, it was not her partner, who had a long history of such things!

Well, obviously the over-reaction is ridiculous but it is a little annoying when somebody starts thinking in a position like this. LHO is misleading you and, although this shouldn't hurt you in a bridge sense, you waste mental energy and time because for that thought period you were planning the play based on a presumed 4-2 break. And once in a while, if you're having an off day, you miscount because you were sure the suit was 4-2, even though you later had evidence to the contrary.

There are plenty of ways for LHO to think about things while making it clear that she's about to follow suit.

[bluejak]

I do get tired of th number of people who think they have the right to tell others when to think. Players have a perfect right to think whenever such thinking does not mislead. Other people do not have a right to tell them when to think.

Giving UI to partner is not an infraction: misleading opponents is. So not issuing a disclaimer when you have otherwise misled opponents is illegal, and the argument that it would give partner UI is no excuse whatever.

[gnasher]

I don't mind someone thinking with a singleton when I already know how many he's got, but it's pretty selfish to think in the situation described by Bluejak.

Bridge is usually played with time limits. The available time belongs to everyone at the table. By thinking when you know that the suit is 3-3 but opponents don't, you are conducting your thought in the knowledge that the suit is 3-3, whereas declarer is likely to use the same time to think about what to do if the suit is 4-2.

The defender could, at no cost, have played his singleton and then stopped to think. Not to do so is unfair, even if it is legal.

[aguahombre]

playing the card, and leaving it face up, should freeze things and allow you to think before declarer plays his next card --thereby preventing a break in tempo at that point as well.

[pran]

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 04:17 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton?

Presumably he was thinking about something else.

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause.

I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result.

Of course it mentions it, because usually it is clearly deceptive. But that does not mean you adjust when it is not. Law 73F does not require an adjustment when there is no reason to be misled. Just because they give an obvious example does not mean you apply it when the Law does not apply.

It is not a question of leniency: if Law 73F applies, you apply it: if it does not, you do not.

What makes you consider the hesitation in this case to be not clearly deceptive?

I cannot see any bridge reason for the hesitation in this case, and even beginners are told in one of their very first lessons that hesitating with a singleton is never acceptable. The player had every reason to suspect that declarer could be deceived and damaged by the hesitation in case he needed to locate an outstanding Queen.

And why was there no reason for declarer to be misled in this case?

Maybe I have overlooked something but I cannot see how declarer should have seen that his LHO had nothing to consider and hesitated for no legal reason at all.

To me this is an obvious case for both L73D2 and L73F, and I adjust with no hesitation.

I am shocked over your statement: "Presumably he was thinking about something else.". Is this to be some excuse?

I don't know how you rule in England, but I feel sure that in Norway this statement would never be accepted as a reason to avoid L73 rectification (and possible PP) unless presented at the latest together with playing the singleton.

Sven

I simply have to register that bluejak (as have happened in some previous threads) avoids answering "difficult" questions that in no way are irrelevant.

Possibly because there are no answers?

[cherdanno]

barmar, on Oct 22 2009, 12:36 AM, said:

OK, so hesitating with a singleton isn't ALWAYS deceptive. Several posts have given examples where declarer has the count of the suit, and knows that the card has to be a singleton. Hesitations before playing this card can never mislead. Maybe if declarer has miscounted, but there's no way that a defender can anticipate this. In fact, perhaps it's inappropriate to hesitate even in this situation, since it might cause declarer to think that he miscounted (perhaps he didn't notice a discard by the other opponent on an earlier trick).

But if the player could possibly hold more than one card in the suit, but actually only holds one, it's misleading to hesitate before following suit. Even if there would never be any reason to consider playing one of the other cards he could hold, the fact remains that with a singleton you have absolutely nothing to think about, so there's no bridge reason to delay. Getting distracted is not a bridge reason. Planning ahead is a possible bridge reason, but there's no reason it has to be done before playing to this trick, so it doesn't excuse it.

I'm definitely not a big fan of "Sorry, I have nothing to think about." types of comments. Does that mean that if you don't say it, declarer can reasonably assume you DO have something to think about? And the comment, or lack of comment, is UI to his partner, so he's putting him in an ethical dilemma. So to avoid problems, you either never say this or say it ALWAYS, but in the latter case it's meaningless because you're required to lie sometimes.

Barry, this is complete non-sense. Of course you never lie about this. If you hesitate and you don't say something, then your partner has UI; if you hesitate and say "I don't have a problem on this trick" your partner has UI. Well, there are laws to deal with this, but transmitting UI by itself is not illegal; deceiving declarer on the other hand may be illegal.

[jallerton]

duschek, on Oct 19 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 18 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

Before ruling I ask the player to explain why it took him ten seconds to play the 10.

LHO was not aware that he spent ten seconds. RHO admitted that LHO took approximately ten seconds to follow with the ten.

Is LHO claiming that he paused for a period of under ten seconds, or is he claiming that he has played the card in tempo?

Bluejak said:

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

I disagree.

LAW 73A2 said:

2. 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.

If a player has only one card left in the suit (and if the player only has Q10 left under dummy's KJ for that matter) then any hesitation is undue.

Law74B said:

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

....

4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Law74C said:

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

....

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

In the story you recount from the Spring Foursomes, unless the defender had not appreciated that it was his turn to play [in which case an apology would have been appropriate] then several Laws were breached.

[barmar]

cherdanno, on Oct 22 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

barmar, on Oct 22 2009, 12:36 AM, said:

OK, so hesitating with a singleton isn't ALWAYS deceptive.  Several posts have given examples where declarer has the count of the suit, and knows that the card has to be a singleton.  Hesitations before playing this card can never mislead.  Maybe if declarer has miscounted, but there's no way that a defender can anticipate this.  In fact, perhaps it's inappropriate to hesitate even in this situation, since it might cause declarer to think that he miscounted (perhaps he didn't notice a discard by the other opponent on an earlier trick).

But if the player could possibly hold more than one card in the suit, but actually only holds one, it's misleading to hesitate before following suit.  Even if there would never be any reason to consider playing one of the other cards he could hold, the fact remains that with a singleton you have absolutely nothing to think about, so there's no bridge reason to delay.  Getting distracted is not a bridge reason.  Planning ahead is a possible bridge reason, but there's no reason it has to be done before playing to this trick, so it doesn't excuse it.

I'm definitely not a big fan of "Sorry, I have nothing to think about." types of comments.  Does that mean that if you don't say it, declarer can reasonably assume you DO have something to think about?  And the comment, or lack of comment, is UI to his partner, so he's putting him in an ethical dilemma.  So to avoid problems, you either never say this or say it ALWAYS, but in the latter case it's meaningless because you're required to lie sometimes.

Barry, this is complete non-sense. Of course you never lie about this. If you hesitate and you don't say something, then your partner has UI; if you hesitate and say "I don't have a problem on this trick" your partner has UI. Well, there are laws to deal with this, but transmitting UI by itself is not illegal; deceiving declarer on the other hand may be illegal.

You're right, I got that part wrong. But I still think the best policy is to never say anything, which avoids the problem entirely. Hesitating with a singleton, and then saying, "Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about" as a way of trying to avoid a 73F complaint, seems wrong. If someone is distracted, it's usually apparent from their mannerisms, and declarer is not likely to make a bridge inference about it.

Bridge is supposed to be a game where you base everything on the bids and plays, not extraneous remarks about why you behaved a certain way.

[blackshoe]

I wonder how often players who "think with a singleton" don't realize they're doing it.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Oct 22 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Bluejak said:

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

I disagree.

[snip]

In the story you recount from the Spring Foursomes, unless the defender had not appreciated that it was his turn to play [in which case an apology would have been appropriate] then several Laws were breached.

Methinks you should read the Laws:

Law 73D1 said:

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.

jallerton, on Oct 22 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Law74B said:

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Of course, but we are not talking 'unnecessarily': we are talking thinking.

barmar Posted on Oct 22 2009, on 09:04 PM, said:

Bridge is supposed to be a game where you base everything on the bids and plays, not extraneous remarks about why you behaved a certain way.

Bridge is supposed to be a game played according to the Laws. Since misleading opponents by tempo is a breach of Law, not issuing a disclaimer which would avoid such misleading is illegal, and pretty unethical since you are trying to gain something illegally, namely avoiding giving UI to partner.

[jallerton]

I had read the Laws, which is why I took the trouble to quote the ones which had been breached.

You quote Law 73D1. The sentence you have put in bold contains the word "unintentionally" so does not legalise the deliberate play of a singleton out of tempo.

Quote

Of course, but we are not talking 'unnecessarily': we are talking thinking.

We are talking about when a player has only one legal card to play. There is nothing to think about; to wait ten seconds before playing the only legal card is prolonging play unnecessarily.

[MFA]

I think Jallerton's arguments are very convincing. Including the reference to 74C7, which seems to forbid a defender to try to play poker with declarer, as it is described in this case.
This is not the way bridge should be played, and luckily the laws seem to agree.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on Oct 22 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Law74C said:

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

....

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

In the specific incident referred to by Bluejak, I don't think there was any intention to disconcert declarer. His attitude, as I recall, was simply "I wanted to think at that point, and I'm allowed to do so."

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 23 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 22 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Law74C said:

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

....

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

In the specific incident referred to by Bluejak, I don't think there was any intention to disconcert declarer. His attitude, as I recall, was simply "I wanted to think at that point, and I'm allowed to do so."

Think about what?

His hesitation was an irregularity (Law 73D1), and he could be aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side (Law 23).

Unless his singleton was the only outstanding card in that suit declarer could be misled to believe that he held more.

His possible lack of intention to disconcert declarer is irrelevant, what is relevant is that his irregularity could.

Sven

[dan_ehh]

gnasher, on Oct 22 2009, 06:27 PM, said:

I don't mind someone thinking with a singleton when I already know how many he's got, but it's pretty selfish to think in the situation described by Bluejak.

Bridge is usually played with time limits.  The available time belongs to everyone at the table.  By thinking when you know that the suit is 3-3 but opponents don't, you are conducting your thought in the knowledge that the suit is 3-3, whereas declarer is likely to use the same time to think about what to do if the suit is 4-2.

The defender could, at no cost, have played his singleton and then stopped to think.  Not to do so is unfair, even if it is legal.

bluejak, on Oct 23 2009, 01:35 AM, said:

Methinks you should read the Laws:

QUOTE (Law 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. 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.

I think gnasher's argument clearly articulates how the player thinking with the 13th card is benefiting from the delay.
Declarer is starting to worry about what to do when the suit isn't breaking, is getting upset about the fact that he might not make her contract, her mind is racing on possible ways to make the contract albeit the bad break, she is using a lot of mental energy, and all of this goes to waste when the (selfish) player finally follows with the card. Whether or not it was intentional, the delay WAS disconcerting and DID work in the hesitating player's advantage in the sense that declarer is now more fatigued (and annoyed) and is likely to do less successfully in the following rounds.

While there is no actual damage on the current deal, I believe this is an infraction which should warrant a warning, and if repeated I definitely think a penalty is in order. This is very undesirable behaviour.

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 23 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

Think about what?

I understand that he was thinking about the later play. In fact, I'm sure, from my own knowledge of the person in question, that that's what he was doing.

Quote

His hesitation was an irregularity (Law 73D1), and he could be aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side (Law 23).

Perhaps this wasn't clear, but I was addressing the question of whether he'd broken Law 74C. That is why I quoted only Law 74C and not any of the others that Jeffrey mentioned. I wasn't suggesting that he hadn't broken any Laws.

Quote

Unless his singleton was the only outstanding card in that suit declarer could be misled to believe that he held more.

It was the only outstanding card in the suit.

Quote

His possible lack of intention to disconcert declarer is irrelevant, what is relevant is that his irregularity could.

The question of intent is plainly relevant to the question of whether he'd broken Law 74C, because Law 74C uses the words "for the purpose of".

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 23 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 23 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

Think about what?

I understand that he was thinking about the later play. In fact, I'm sure, from my own knowledge of the person in question, that that's what he was doing.

I don't know what other jurisitions tell their directors, but we are told to never (except on the very first trick) accept that a player with a singleton in the suit led "was thinking about the later play" while hesitating to follow suit.

He has absolutely no bridge reason for not playing his singleton without hesitation and then do his thinking afterwards.

(This applies as much to declarer as it applies to both defenders!)

The argument that opponents should know that the player in question had a singleton is just a red herring and completely irrelevant.

(BTW, we are similarly very sceptical to LHO hesitating with two small cards in a suit when declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, or perhaps even better AJ, in that suit. Too many times have we heard the excuse: "I was considering whether to discard correct or false distribution". We just don't buy such excuses.)

Sven

[jallerton]

gnasher, on Oct 23 2009, 11:14 AM, said:

The question of intent is plainly relevant to the question of whether he'd broken Law 74C, because Law 74C uses the words "for the purpose of".

Indeed it is. The problem for the TD is that he will never know the player's intention.

Hence I agree with the sceptical Norwegain approach, as outlined by Sven, to players who hesitate when they have not got a decision to make at their current turn to play.

Back to the actual case. The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. Declarer surely knew this, so there is no reason for him to draw a false inference from the alleged hesitation. Hence there is no damage from the infraction and no reason for the TD to adjust the score.

However, what I would do is to assess a proedural penalty on the defender, to discourage the repetition of such behaviour.