[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 23 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

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.

Are you saying that if a player pauses before playing the 13th card in a suit, and then says that he was thinking about the later play, a Norwegian director will automatically rule that he was pausing "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent"?

[gordontd]

jallerton, on Oct 23 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

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.

I don't think I agree with this. Declarer is presented with two possibilities: LHO was thinking which of two cards to play, or declarer was thinking which card of a singleton to play.

Even if the actual doubleton holding should occasion no thought, the only legitimate explanation for the pause is that the defender was in fact thinking what to play.

Players do surprising things, and the pause in this situation - for no demonstrable bridge reason - has indeed deflected declarer from his normal line.

[aguahombre]

Gordon, that is about as clear as it can get. If was the first reply, it should have been the only reply.

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on Oct 23 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

Back to the actual case.  The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. 

So you say that from both holdings the play of the T is automatic? Wrong!
The Hideous Hog or the Rueful Rabbit might well break an ice cold contract. Your silly play of the 10 could cost two (!) tricks, Ignoramus!

---

The auction:
Pass-2♣
2♦-3NT
6NT

South leads the ♥J.

At some point, East will play ♣A and a club towards dummy, with the intent to finesse the J. If South now plays the ♣10, declarer will have no choice but to finesse and he will take 13 tricks. South will get the bottom he deserves.

But if South plays the ♣Q (whether with intent, like the Hog or because he had the ♣T sorted with the spades like the Rabbit) he has a sporting chance to beat the contract. So don't tell me that you don't have a choice what to play from QTx.

Now you will say: "But Rik, East has ♣Ax instead of ♣Axxx." That is true, but defenders holding QTx (and faced with a decision) don't know how many clubs declarer has, do they? So they will have to make their decision without knowing whether East has Ax or Axxx.

Rik

P.S. I will leave it up to the pros to figure out what the correct line of play for declarer is, after South plays the queen. But I am sure what the correct choice for a defender is when he can choose between "giving declarer the contract" or "giving declarer a headache".

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 23 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 23 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

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.

Are you saying that if a player pauses before playing the 13th card in a suit, and then says that he was thinking about the later play, a Norwegian director will automatically rule that he was pausing "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent"?

Let me first of all clear up possible misunderstanding(s) here: I have never talked about the 13th card in a suit and never about hesitating before leading a card. Also I specifically exclude hesitations when playing to the first trick.

It is IMHO completely irrelevant for the question of a (deliberate or accidental) violation of Law 73D2 whether or not an opponent should be able to tell that a player who hesitated before following suit did so with a singleton.

And I see absolutely no reason for a player violating Law 73D2 in this way other than to attempt disconcerting an opponent. (Thinking about other things, e.g. the play of future tricks is no legal bridge reason.)

Consequently YES, a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton will always be considered hesitating for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent, a violation also of Law 74C7.

Sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 23 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

Let me first of all clear up possible misunderstanding(s) here: I have never talked about the 13th card in a suit

Then we have been talking at cross purposes. All of the comments of mine that you have quoted, and apparently disagreed with, related to this specific incident:

bluejak said:

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!

and to this comment:

jallerton 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.

I did try to make this clear by liberally sprinkling my comments with phrases such as "the specific incident referred to by Bluejak" and references to "Law 74C".

pran said:

[stuff about other laws snipped]

Consequently YES, a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton will always  be considered hesitating for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent, a violation also of Law 74C7.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that Law74C forbids hesitation for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent? Or are you saying that some other law forbids hesitation for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent?

I'm not just picking hairs here. Saying to somebody "When you paused it was against the rules and we're going to fine you" is very different from saying "When you paused it was a deliberate attempt to put your opponents off."

[blackshoe]

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

You got the point.

But be aware that even if I have evidence that the player had no intent of deceiving opponents his hesitation is still an irregularity (Law 73D) and he is still subject to Law 23: Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, . . . . .

So I do not need to prove intent in order to rule damage and award an adjusted score. A fact that a player on the non-offending side has been confused by the hesitation and consequently been damaged is quite sufficient.

regards Sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

You got the point.

But you can't penalise someone for pausing with an "apparent intent to deceive opponents" (unless the Norwegian regulations say otherwise, I suppose).

You can adjust the score because the pause misled the opponents, but only if the misinformation caused damage.

You can penalise somebody for not being particularly careful about a pause that may work to the benefit of his side (but the introduction to the Laws does suggest that this offence should rarely be penalised).

Or, you can penalise somebody for pausing with the actual intent to deceive. If you do that, you had better be sure that you're right.

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 24 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 24 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

What Sven appears to me to be saying is that if a player hesitates with a singleton, he will rule, based on that evidence alone (plus the Norwegian instruction to TDs) that the player did so with the apparent intent to deceive opponents. It's not clear what he would do if he had evidence that the player did not intend deceit, nor is it clear how much evidence, if any, or what kind, would cause him to rule otherwise.

You got the point.

But you can't penalise someone for pausing with an "apparent intent to deceive opponents" (unless the Norwegian regulations say otherwise, I suppose).

I am not aware that I have used the word penalize anywhere in this context?

And when I write apparent intent to deceive opponents, that is to be taken that the director is satisfied such intent to exist (see in for instance Law 23: in the opinion of the Director)

gnasher, on Oct 24 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

You can adjust the score because the pause misled the opponents, but only if the misinformation caused damage.

To my best knowledge that is precisely what I have written?

gnasher, on Oct 24 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

You can penalise somebody for not being particularly careful about a pause that may work to the benefit of his side (but the introduction to the Laws does suggest that this offence should rarely be penalised)..

And this is something I have certainly not at all suggested.

gnasher, on Oct 24 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

Or, you can penalise somebody for pausing with the actual intent to deceive.  If you do that, you had better be sure that you're right.

When I write apparent intent that is to say that in the director's opinion the intent is clear. In a context like this I never use the word "apparent" to mean that something looks like but certainly isn't. And I never rectify for an irregularity unless I am sure that I am right. I can of course be in error, that is why we have appeals.

I am not immune to the possibility that a hesitation before following suit with a singleton could occationally be acceptable, but it certainly takes more than silly explanations to convince me of such a possibility.

Sven

[gnasher]

So, taking these two statements together:

pran said:

Consequently YES, a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton will always be considered hesitating for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent, a violation also of Law 74C7.

pran said:

When I write apparent intent that is to say that in the director's opinion the intent is clear. In a context like this I never use the word "apparent" to mean that something looks like but certainly isn't.

Does that mean that the actual position is this?

Norwegian TDs are taught that a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton should always be considered to be hesitating for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on Oct 23 2009, 08:53 PM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 23 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

Back to the actual case.  The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. 

So you say that from both holdings the play of the T is automatic? Wrong!
The Hideous Hog or the Rueful Rabbit might well break an ice cold contract. Your silly play of the 10 could cost two (!) tricks, Ignoramus!

But if South plays the ♣Q (whether with intent, like the Hog or because he had the ♣T sorted with the spades like the Rabbit) he has a sporting chance to beat the contract. So don't tell me that you don't have a choice what to play from QTx.

Now you will say: "But Rik, East has ♣Ax instead of ♣Axxx." That is true, but defenders holding QTx (and faced with a decision) don't know how many clubs declarer has, do they? So they will have to make their decision without knowing whether East has Ax or Axxx.

Rik

No, I'll say: Rik, if you want to pull off this brilliancy, I suggest that you play the queen in tempo.

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 24 2009, 08:50 PM, said:

So, taking these two statements together:

pran said:

Consequently YES, a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton will always be considered hesitating for the apparent purpose of disconcerting an opponent, a violation also of Law 74C7.

pran said:

When I write apparent intent that is to say that in the director's opinion the intent is clear. In a context like this I never use the word "apparent" to mean that something looks like but certainly isn't.

Does that mean that the actual position is this?

Norwegian TDs are taught that a player who hesitates before following suit with a singleton should always be considered to be hesitating for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

When you quote then please make "honest" quotes.

If you do I suppose you will see that your question has no merit.

Sven

[blackshoe]

He's not quoting, he's paraphrasing.

[pran]

Maybe, but he omitted essential details.

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

Maybe, but he omitted essential details.

I was actually just asking a question. I'm trying hard to understand what it is that you teach Norwegian TDs about how to treat a player who pauses with a singleton. If what I wrote isn't correct (and I really hope it isn't), then correct it.

And please don't tell me that if the pause causes misinformation you adjust - we already know that. I'm asking about how you treat the act of pausing with a singleton, not how you treat the consequences of the pause.

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on Oct 24 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

No, I'll say: Rik, if you want to pull off this brilliancy, I suggest that you play the queen in tempo.

Of course you have to play the queen in tempo, but that is irrelevant for my point. The point is that it has been stated repeatedly and boldly (see quotes below) that you don't have a decision to make when you started with QTx. The 10 is always the right card from that holding. And I have stated repeatedly that that is simply not true, proving it with an example where the Q is the correct play and the play of the 10 is wrong.

From this bold statement several posters concluded: Therefore you will need as much time to think when you started with QTx as when you started with Tx. And that they wouldn't adjust. But since this bold statement is now proven wrong, the conclusions that these posters drew from it are not holding up either.

In short, the correct reasoning is:
With QTx you may have a decision to make (and thus might hesitate) while with Tx there is no decision to make, other than to follow suit (and you won't hesitate). Hesitating with Tx misleads because it suggests that you have a decision to make which, as I pointed out, does only occur when you started with QTx. Therefore, you will have to adjust.

Rik

skaeran, on Oct 19 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

Unless he missorted his hand, he either had QT or T. With none of these holdings did he have anything at all to think about, and declarer knows that.

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

No, 73F does not say this.  If you hesitate with a singleton, and declarer if he has half a brain knows you have a singleton because you hesitated - which is the case here - then there is no reason to adjust.

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

jallerton, on Oct 23 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

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.

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 25 2009, 01:13 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 24 2009, 10:49 PM, said:

Maybe, but he omitted essential details.

I was actually just asking a question. I'm trying hard to understand what it is that you teach Norwegian TDs about how to treat a player who pauses with a singleton. If what I wrote isn't correct (and I really hope it isn't), then correct it.

And please don't tell me that if the pause causes misinformation you adjust - we already know that. I'm asking about how you treat the act of pausing with a singleton, not how you treat the consequences of the pause.

OK. I thought I had made this clear.

Except for the first trick: A player who hesitates before following suit to a trick when he holds only a singleton in the suit led is making himself subject to a ruling under Laws 73D2, 74C7 and 23.

He will normally receive a warning (which is our mildest procedure penalty) and we do not accept silly excuses like "I was thinking on later tricks". We do accept an excuse with his play like "sorry, I had nothing to think about", well aware that this creates UI to his partner. But at least opponents have been warned not to draw any information from the hesitation other than that the player had been inattentive.

If an opponent claims that the hesitation misled him into selecting an unfortunate line of play and this claim is found valid, the score will normally be adjusted accordingly.

(We apply a similar principle against a player who holding only small cards and sitting before a tenace (e.g. A-J) in the suit led hesitates before following suit. Here we do not accept (silly) arguments like "I was thinking on whether to false-carding my distribution", he should in case have thought of that before.)

Hesitation by a player who can show a bridge reason for his hesitation is of course always accepted.

Sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 25 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

Except for the first trick: A player who hesitates before following suit to a trick when he holds only a singleton in the suit led is making himself subject to a ruling under Laws 73D2, 74C7 and 23.

He will normally receive a warning (which is our mildest procedure penalty) and we do not accept silly excuses like "I was thinking on later tricks". We do accept an excuse with his play like "sorry, I had nothing to think about", well aware that this creates UI to his partner. But at least opponents have been warned not to draw any information from the hesitation other than that the player had been inattentive.

If an opponent claims that the hesitation misled him into selecting an unfortunate line of play and this claim is found valid, the score will normally be adjusted accordingly.

(We apply a similar principle against a player who holding only small cards and sitting before a tenace (e.g. A-J) in the suit led hesitates before following suit. Here we do not accept (silly) arguments like "I was thinking on whether to false-carding my distribution", he should in case have thought of that before.)

Hesitation by a player who can show a bridge reason for his hesitation is of course always accepted.

Sven

So in this scenario:
- A defender, an experienced player, pauses before following suit with a singleton.
- He makes no apology at the time
- Declarer takes all of the remaining tricks, so he cannot (and does not) claim to have been damaged or put off by the pause
- When asked, the defender says that he was thinking about the later play, and that he is entitled to do so under the Laws.
- Apart from what has happened on this deal, you have no reason to think this player dishonest.

Would you say to him "In my opinion your pause was a breach of Law 74C7, in that it was intended to disconcert an opponent"?

[Trinidad]

I would think that Sven would tell him that:
- His pause could have misled the declarer
- He was aware of the fact that the pause could have misled the declarer
- That is a violation of law 73
- If declarer would actually have been misled, he would have adjusted the score
- The offender was lucky that that wasn't needed here
- He is strongly adviced to plan his pauses more carefully in the future
- In the future, apart from the score adjustment, there may be more severe consequences.

I would say pretty much the same.

Rik