[gnasher]

Trinidad, on Oct 25 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

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

Assuming that by "Law 73" you mean specifically 73A2 and/or 73D1, that would be a perfectly reasonable response, and I'd be delighted to learn that that's what Sven would say. So, is it?

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 25 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

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"?

YES, except for one single detail:

I wouldn't have said that it was intended to diconcert an opponent because that I cannot know.

I would have said that it was a breach of Law 73D2 and could very well be ruled a breach of Law 74C7 involving Law 23 in that his hesitation could very well have disconcerted an opponent. He has failed to show any valid bridge reason for his hesitation, and that in case opponents had (allegedly as a result of the hesitation) chosen an unfortunate line of play and been damaged I would have ruled that he could have been aware of the danger of damage to opponents (Law 23) and awarded an adjusted score.

I would also have told him to regard this as a procedure penalty in the form of an official warning.

Sven

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 25 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Oct 25 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

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

Assuming that by "Law 73" you mean specifically 73A2 and/or 73D1, that would be a perfectly reasonable response, and I'd be delighted to learn that that's what Sven would say. So, is it?

Yes, I could, and if challenged would have included also these Laws.

regards Sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

I would have said that it was a breach of Law 73D2 ...

I would also have told him to regard this as a procedure penalty in the form of an official warning.

So you would tell the player that, in your opinion, by pausing he had attempted to mislead an opponent?

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on Oct 25 2009, 01:04 AM, said:

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.

Actually, no. In the quotes you made, it was stated that the player would have no reason to think on the second round from Q10x. Nobody actually stated what the correct card to play would be, but in case you're interested, I'd expect:

(i) 99% of players to play the 10 in tempo deeming it automatic that 'second hand plays low'.

(ii) 1% of players to play the Q as a falsecard. You agree with me that a falsecard would have to be played in tempo, so that any decision to make this falsecard would have been made either instantly or before this trick had commenced.

(iii) 0% of players would stop to think on the 2nd round holding Q10 left under dummy's remaining KJxx.

[By the way, in your example playing the Q should not beat the contract so I don't see how it 'proves' that the Q is the correct card.]

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

I would have said that it was a breach of Law 73D2 ...

I would also have told him to regard this as a procedure penalty in the form of an official warning.

So you would tell the player that, in your opinion, by pausing he had attempted to mislead an opponent?

I have already told you precisely what I would say and why.

Your questions imply that I shall pretend being a mind-reader. I am not and have no idea of pretending to be.

Sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 26 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

I would have said that it was a breach of Law 73D2 ...

I would also have told him to regard this as a procedure penalty in the form of an official warning.

So you would tell the player that, in your opinion, by pausing he had attempted to mislead an opponent?

I have already told you precisely what I would say and why.

Your questions imply that I shall pretend being a mind-reader. I am not and have no idea of pretending to be.

Sven

You have told the player that he is receiving a procedural penalty for a breach of Law 73D2, which reads:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of
remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as
in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a
call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct
procedure.

If you don't believe that he has broken this Law, you cannot penalise him for breaking it. So, even if you're not prepared to say so, by giving a procedural penalty for a breach of this law you are finding that, in your judgement, his pause was an attempt to mislead the opponents. Obviously you can't be certain of this, but that is a feature of many of the judgements that TDs are called upon to make.

That is about the second or third worst thing that you could say to a bridge player. Pausing with the intention to mislead isn't as bad as using finger signals, or buying a copy of the hand records in advance, but it is still cheating. There is a huge difference between "pausing in a situation which might cause an opponent to be misled" and "attempting to mislead an opponent by pausing".

As I said earlier, before you make this sort of accusation, you have to be right. Making a semi-automatic finding that anyone who hesitates with a singleton has broken Law 73D2 is dreadful.

[pran]

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 26 2009, 01:40 AM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 26 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

pran, on Oct 25 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

I would have said that it was a breach of Law 73D2 ...

I would also have told him to regard this as a procedure penalty in the form of an official warning.

So you would tell the player that, in your opinion, by pausing he had attempted to mislead an opponent?

I have already told you precisely what I would say and why.

Your questions imply that I shall pretend being a mind-reader. I am not and have no idea of pretending to be.

Sven

You have told the player that he is receiving a procedural penalty for a breach of Law 73D2, which reads:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of
remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as
in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a
call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct
procedure.

If you don't believe that he has broken this Law, you cannot penalise him for breaking it. So, even if you're not prepared to say so, by giving a procedural penalty for a breach of this law you are finding that, in your judgement, his pause was an attempt to mislead the opponents. Obviously you can't be certain of this, but that is a feature of many of the judgements that TDs are called upon to make.

That is about the second or third worst thing that you could say to a bridge player. Pausing with the intention to mislead isn't as bad as using finger signals, or buying a copy of the hand records in advance, but it is still cheating. There is a huge difference between "pausing in a situation which might cause an opponent to be misled" and "attempting to mislead an opponent by pausing".

As I said earlier, before you make this sort of accusation, you have to be right. Making a semi-automatic finding that anyone who hesitates with a singleton has broken Law 73D2 is dreadful.

Please - please - please.

Don't stubbornly ignore my references to Law 23.

If there is reasonable doubt about whether there was hesitation then your argument is not questioned, at least not by me.

If there is no doubt about hesitation but doubt about intention then Law 23 is the important one.

And that is what I have focused on all the time.

sven

[gnasher]

pran, on Oct 26 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

Please - please - please.

Don't stubbornly ignore my references to Law 23.

If there is reasonable doubt about whether there was hesitation then your argument is not questioned, at least not by me.

If there is no doubt about hesitation but doubt about intention then Law 23 is the important one.

And that is what I have focused on all the time.

sven

I'm not stubbornly ignoring your references to Law 23; I'm just not very interested in them. If the pause causes damage, of course you adjust the score. That is utterly uncontroversial.

What interested and concerned me, and what I've been trying to pin down for what feels like several weeks, if that, as I understand it, you would normally issue a procedural penalty for hesitating with a singleton even if there is no damage, and even without evidence of dishonest intent, and that furthermore you'd do so under a law that impugns the honesty of the player.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-October-26, 10:27

[bluejak]

pran, on Oct 26 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

Please - please - please.

Don't stubbornly ignore my references to Law 23.

If there is reasonable doubt about whether there was hesitation then your argument is not questioned, at least not by me.

If there is no doubt about hesitation but doubt about intention then Law 23 is the important one.

And that is what I have focused on all the time.

What references?

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.

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

So you have said unambiguously that if he says he is thinking about the rest of the hand he is lying and dishonest.

You have said that if claims a bridge reason whatever it is he is lying.

And you said nothing whatever in that post about Law 23.

[Sadie3]

Law 23 is specifically about irregularities in the bidding. I don't see where 'playing' a singleton has anything to do with the bidding.

[RMB1]

Sadie3, on Oct 26 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Law 23 is specifically about irregularities in the bidding. ...

The recent WBF minutes point to the removal of chapters/headings in the official version of the laws and confirm that Law 23 applies to all irregularities (in the auction or play), even though it is sequential with other laws related to the auction.

But as gnasher tires of saying, law 23 requires damage.

Robin

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

So you have said unambiguously that if he says he is thinking about the rest of the hand he is lying and dishonest.

Thinking about the rest of the hand is not an excuse. You can play your singleton in tempo and not quit the trick.

So, if the purpose of thinking before playing the singleton was not:
- To mislead
- To think about the rest of the hand
- To disconcert the opponents

what bridge reason was there then to think before playing the singleton?

Rik

[barmar]

Although a player SHOULDN'T think about the rest of the hand when it's his turn to play a singleton, he may IN FACT have done so. So it's a bridge reason for the hesitation, but a bad one. Players are strongly advised to do their thinking at more appropriate times, so you don't get into a situation where the only evidence in your favor is a self-serving statement about your reason.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Oct 26 2009, 02:40 PM, said:

Thinking about the rest of the hand is not an excuse. You can play your singleton in tempo and not quit the trick.

I have seen this happen:

Declarer leads from one hand or another. A defender plays his singleton. Two more cards are played to the trick. Three players quit the trick, somebody (usually declarer) leads to the next trick, three players quit that trick, another lead comes out. At this point, if you're lucky, the player who was still thinking asks what the Hell is going on.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on Oct 26 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 26 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

So you have said unambiguously that if he says he is thinking about the rest of the hand he is lying and dishonest.

Thinking about the rest of the hand is not an excuse. You can play your singleton in tempo and not quit the trick.

So, if the purpose of thinking before playing the singleton was not:
- To mislead
- To think about the rest of the hand
- To disconcert the opponents

what bridge reason was there then to think before playing the singleton?

I have no idea.

But if I am asked to rule, I shall find out. What I shall not do is what is recommended here, namely

• assume he cannot be thinking generally without me investigating, and
  
  
• assume anything he tells me is a lie and proves he is dishonest

As with any other judgement, I will go into it with an open mind and find out what is happening.

barmar, on Oct 26 2009, 09:11 PM, said:

Although a player SHOULDN'T think about the rest of the hand when it's his turn to play a singleton, he may IN FACT have done so. So it's a bridge reason for the hesitation, but a bad one. Players are strongly advised to do their thinking at more appropriate times, so you don't get into a situation where the only evidence in your favor is a self-serving statement about your reason.

Players are advised by whom?

Our job as TDs is to rule on things that happen, not to pretend we are gods who decree that players must do things the way we think and get all self-righteous when they do not.

It is clear from the Laws that you may think legally if it is does not mislead and is not for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent, and we should rule on that basis, and not on the basis of advice that we are to assume players are lying nor that we disapprove of players who think when they want to and not when we tell them.