[mikegill]

Scoring: IMP

2♠ p 3♠* AP

---

* = after a BIT

This was actually the full hand from a post Noble made in Interesting bridge hands. I was North, and was considering whether or not to make a light double over 3♠ if it was bid. After West tanked, I thought it was clear to just pass. Anyway, maybe I have a double and maybe I don't - that's not the point here. Mostly I'm interested in whether or not West is allowed to think then bid 3♠ like this. At the table, West was someone who we think is an honest player, and he said he was considering bidding a wonky lead-directing 3♥ but ultimately decided against it (he apparently thought he was playing McCabe over passes!). Anyway, we didn't call the director, both because it wasn't a major event and because it's not clear that either of us had a bid anyway.

In general, are you allowed to think then make a less than invitational bid when you are unlimited like this and your hand is actually not close to an invitation (even if you think you legitimately have a problem about whether to bid or not)?

[PhantomSac]

Of course he can think before bidding 3S. I'm not sure why you think a slow 3S implies a good hand rather than a bad hand. He is red/white and has a yarb so he is certainly allowed to consider passing (I would certainly pass with that hand). Similarly he could have a hand with 4 spades that is considering bidding 4S, but decides that he's too weak and will go for too many.

I think a hand that is considering bidding 4 is the most likely hand after a slow 3S, so you should be more inclined to bid, not less. I am kind of shocked that you are even asking this question.

[jdonn]

I largely agree with Justin, but I don't believe thinking of psyching is a valid reason for bidding out of tempo and that's what west admitted he was doing.

[awm]

As I understand it, the rules regarding thinking are:

(1) You're not allowed to "pretend to think" when you don't have a problem.
(2) Deciding how to psych/falsecard/mislead the opponents may not be considered a problem.

The second rule is enforced somewhat erratically, but the idea is that if your only "problem" is how to mislead, then breaking tempo might accomplish the misleading better than any action you can actually take, so you shouldn't be allowed to break tempo substantially for this reason.

Anyway, none of this applies to the hand in question. West has a legitimate decision whether to pass or raise to 3♠. He may also have a decision whether to psych, and if that were the only decision he had to make it might be questionable. It's not though.

[PhantomSac]

Yeah ok if the problem is because west said he was thinking of psyching or just raising I see why mikegill was not happy. If west hadn't said anything then I don't think there would be a problem though.

[ggwhiz]

This kind of tank is only an infraction if it DELIBERATELY tries to mis-lead the opponents.

Clearly not the case here given your description of the opp and legitimate issues to think about.

That deliberately thing is so hard to prove that it's only likely to be caught through the recorder system. Luckily, I don't think there are more than a handful of players that fit that bill.

[plaur]

mikegill, on Feb 9 2010, 12:06 PM, said:

In general, are you allowed to think then make a less than invitational bid when you are unlimited like this and your hand is actually not close to an invitation (even if you think you legitimately have a problem about whether to bid or not)?

Scoring: MP

p-2♠-p-p*
2♠=7-11HCP and exactly 5 spades
* pass after BIT

---

How about this one? Can you tank and then pass when partner opened 2♠ in second hand, showing 7-11 HCP and exactly 5 spades?

[jjbrr]

Yes.

[jdonn]

ggwhiz, on Feb 9 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

This kind of tank is only an infraction if it DELIBERATELY tries to mis-lead the opponents.

Clearly not the case here given your description of the opp and legitimate issues to think about.

Isn't the law something more like, if it could mislead them and you had no good bridge reason to be thinking? Deliberate doesn't enter into it or else you could never judge.

[mikegill]

Maybe my experiences are different from everyone else's but it seems like people tend to tank way more with good hands, since it's involves more judgment rather than following some formula like "usually raise with 3 and a hand clearly less than inv". That's why I thought the tank was likely to show a good hand and therefore make it clear to pass here.

There are examples from the play where you simply just can't think when you don't actually have a problem (even if you think you do) - I've had a director adjust when I had to guess to play for a finesse or drop after a hypothetical squeeze and the player who would have been squeezed tanked when they weren't squeezed (and she was honestly trying to count some suit that she should have known didn't matter). Maybe I'm asking there exists some parallel situation in the bidding?

I'm sure this wasn't the best example, it just got me thinking about it - like I said we didn't actually call the director, it was just kind of annoying that he was really thinking about nothing. What about tank-passing a normal preempt with a bad hand and 3-card support? Obviously if you're doing any of these things deliberately it's a big problem but I guess there's no way to regulate this other than the recorder system and you'll never get ATT compensation?

[gnasher]

You can think without penalty or adjustment whenever you have a bridge reason for thinking. If you think when you have no reason to think, the score can be adjusted, regardless of your intent.

mikegill said:

Maybe my experiences are different from everyone else's but it seems like people tend to tank way more with good hands, since it's involves more judgment rather than following some formula like "usually raise with 3 and a hand clearly less than inv". That's why I thought the tank was likely to show a good hand and therefore make it clear to pass here.

So you were unlucky enough to run into someone whose "Shall I bid game" tanks are indistinguishable from his "Shall I psyche" tanks. In other words he maintains a more even tempo than your other opponents. The rules say that maintaining an even tempo is a good thing, so I don't think you have any cause for complaint.

Quote

Maybe I'm asking there exists some parallel situation in the bidding?

Yes, there is. If you appear to think when you have nothing to think about, and it misleads an opponent, your score can be adjusted. The point is that deciding whether to psyche isn't nothing: it's a bridge decision like any other.

Having said that, one thing about this story doesn't quite add up: assuming that this was in the ACBL, West should have had 10 seconds to think about what to do during South's mandatory pause over 2♠. Did West really need longer than 10 seconds to think about what he was going to do over RHO's pass?

[pooltuna]

PhantomSac, on Feb 9 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

Yeah ok if the problem is because west said he was thinking of psyching or just raising I see why mikegill was not happy. If west hadn't said anything then I don't think there would be a problem though.

I don't care if he was thinking about the blonde at the next table wearing a white, sleeveless strapped blouse or if he was worried that 4♠ was a Phantom Sac this is nearly impregnable from penalties. TBS the BIT imposes significant problems for his partner who is for all practical purposes forced to pass. Consequently that gives the 4th seat something to mull over.

[ggwhiz]

Quote

This kind of tank is only an infraction if it DELIBERATELY tries to mis-lead the opponents.

Quote

Isn't the law something more like, if it could mislead them and you had no good bridge reason to be thinking? Deliberate doesn't enter into it or else you could never judge.

I admit this is just my recollection of the law but I'm about 90% sure. Would it be a surprise if the ACBL had such a wishy washy un-enforcable thing like this on the books?

[gnasher]

I'm continually surprised that people speculate about the contents of the Laws instead of just reading them on the Internet. This is the relevant law (from http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/Law...awsComplete.pdf):

Law 73F said:

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).

That isn't an ACBL rule: it's a WBF one. And it is worded so as to make it very easily enforceable. You don't have to show that someone was deliberately trying to mislead, and all bridge players could know that thinking when you have nothing to think about might mislead the opponents. Hence all that the director has to do is make subjective decisions about whether there was a legitimate bridge reason for the pause, and whether an opponent was misled in a way that caused damage. That isn't any different from all the other subjective decisions that we pay directors to make.

[Fluffy]

I often tank a lot before dediding how high I am going to risk a preempt to put pressure on opps, I thought it was completelly legitimate thing to do O_o

[jdonn]

I actually did know the law exactly but was trying to keep things conversational since we aren't in the laws forums. Regarding what ggwhiz said there is no mention of "deliberate". Regarding what I said I'll show you the online jdonn translator:

jdonn: if it could mislead them ["it" being a break in tempo]
law: who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit

jdonn: you had no good bridge reason to be thinking
law: who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action

[mikegill]

What about "I was trying to remember my agreements"? (Obviously that wouldn't apply to this particular situation). Is that always a valid bridge reason? It seems like "I was thinking about psyching" should probably be a tentative reason at best.

[jdonn]

mikegill, on Feb 9 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

What about "I was trying to remember my agreements"? (Obviously that wouldn't apply to this particular situation). Is that always a valid bridge reason? It seems like "I was thinking about psyching" should probably be a tentative reason at best.

Neither of those reasons seem like "demonstrable" bridge reasons. Certainly not "I was trying to remember my agreements".

[Pict]

If we go back to the original post then I think that if your methods have South pass then North doubles.

If you read the opponents delay wrong then ... yes there is the stuff about deliberately/possibly misleading. In this case I would not fix it for you because it is way to close.

[peachy]

ggwhiz, on Feb 9 2010, 12:26 PM, said:

This kind of tank is only an infraction if it DELIBERATELY tries to mis-lead the opponents. 

Clearly not the case here given your description of the opp and legitimate issues to think about.

That deliberately thing is so hard to prove that it's only likely to be caught through the recorder system.  Luckily, I don't think there are more than a handful of players that fit that bill.

And luckily, the law is the same for the types you describe and for honest types. Otherwise, a mind reader is needed for the types you describe and any law that requires mind reading cannot work.

So, if it is judged that there was a BIT, AND there was no bridge reason for it, AND the opponents were damaged, the ruling is the same for *I wanted to fool my opponents* , *I don't know*, *I really really really had a such-and-such-bridge-reason for thinking*, or even *I didn't tank, you are are all wrong* . Nobody is questioning the integrity of the tanker. They all get the same lesson for future as well.

PS. After posting, I realized I hadn't read all of this thread. What I said, had already been said, and maybe better than I did.