[bluejak]

I think that a singularly unfortunate comment, since people who do not check it will think that a majority of commentators suggested otherwise, which demonstrably they did not. Perhaps you would like to re-read the case then adjust your comment.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 11:08 PM, said:

In practical terms, Law 73F does not apply where a player damages himself, and is not damaged by an opponent.

I believe, as do many others here, that the player was in fact damaged by an opponent.

[bluejak]

That's fine: that is a difference in judgement. But if he was not then I do not believe we should adjust, and the majority of commentators in the appeal cited did not say we should in such circumstances.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Mar 16 2010, 03:47 AM, said:

and the majority of commentators in the appeal cited did not say we should in such circumstances.

Can we not discuss "the appeal cited", unless someone wants to post it in full, preferably in another thread?

[dburn]

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

Declarer was not damaged by the hesitation, but by declarer's own misapprehension.

Well, declarer confronted (as far as I can tell) this position:

---

Requiring two tricks, he or she - oh, let's just use D - led low to the king. East (a world champion) played low after some thought, whereupon D led low to the queen, losing to the doubleton ace.

Now, when you lead low to the king you expect one of two things to happen in short order. Either the king will lose to the ace and you will later lose another trick in the suit, or it will not. If it does not, you will duck the next round and hope for the best.

But when East plays slowly on the king, why might he be doing this? If you are a player above a certain level of competence, you will surmise that East is considering only with which card to signal; it will not occur to you that he might be considering ducking the ace, because no one (particularly a world champion) would do that.

If on the other hand you are a player below a certain level of competence, there will in your mind be only one reason why a man (particularly a world champion) might give some thought when you play the king: he is wondering whether or not to play the ace. Therefore he has the ace, and therefore (when he does not play the ace) you can secure a second trick in the suit by leading to the queen.

The point is this: declarer's "own misapprehension" occurred because of, and only because of, the hesitation. True, it ought not to have occurred in the mind of anyone above a certain (not very high) level of competence. But it is not open to officials to say that a player should have sufficient nous not to have been misled, only to say whether or not the player could in fact have been misled given the nous that the player possessed. Even if only an idiot could have been misled by what you did, this does not mean that the Laws allow you to go around misleading idiots with impunity.

In passing, I should say that if a world champion (who presumably knew the position) did in fact give any thought at all to which card he should play under the king, and particularly if he did so against an opponent without much in the way of nous, I would... well, I would not be able to strip him of his titles, but if I had the power to order his summary execution, I would certainly do so.

[axman]

dburn, on Mar 15 2010, 11:44 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

Declarer was not damaged by the hesitation, but by declarer's own misapprehension.

Well, declarer confronted (as far as I can tell) this position:

---

In passing, I should say that if a world champion (who presumably knew the position) did in fact give any thought at all to which card he should play under the king, and particularly if he did so against an opponent without much in the way of nous, I would... well, I would not be able to strip him of his titles, but if I had the power to order his summary execution, I would certainly do so.

Normally, Burn speaks with great accuracy, but not here. The expectation to avoid improper deception is not that he not think, but that he not vary his manner.

[Fluffy]

dburn, on Mar 16 2010, 04:44 AM, said:

In passing, I should say that if a world champion (who presumably knew the position) did in fact give any thought at all to which card he should play under the king, and particularly if he did so against an opponent without much in the way of nous, I would... well, I would not be able to strip him of his titles, but if I had the power to order his summary execution, I would certainly do so.

And this just happened after he had made a hesitation no-dobule lightner of like 30 seconds to get the killing lead through dummy's suit in 6♦, the hesitation also making my partner to missguess ♦Jxxx wich was behind. Only the combo of the 2 beated the slam.

Sadly inquiry said he prefers not any names given on this kind of things publically, but if anyone interested I am more than willing to tell the players name, just private message me.

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

A touch of pedantry has crept into several threads in IBLF, which I think is not helpful. But in this case perhaps I shall have to give the pedantic answer.

Declarer was not damaged by the hesitation, but by declarer's own misapprehension. If we followed the logic here we should have to adjust for any play however ridiculous after the opponents have done some breach of this Law.

Pedantically, yes, this is correct, and we have to go to Law 12C to adjust. Fortunately Law 12C does not tell us to change the score when there is no damage, so the adjustment is to table score.

Ok, let's forget the pedantry. In practical terms, Law 73F does not apply where a player damages himself, and is not damaged by an opponent.

I think any legal loopholes that can be found to get us out of making ridiculous rulings are helpful.

I recall a case where declarer made an illogical assumption that an opponent who asked a question must hold a significant card, played accordingly and asked for a score adjustment because she had been misled by the question. The director's ruling of no adjustment was overturned by the referee because of the wording of law 73F (the innocent player had drawn a false inference, whether she had reason to do so or not).

I have no idea if the referee thought the outcome a fair result or not, but I had some sympathy for him as he was presumably seeking to follow the dictum promoted by Bluejak that where there is a clearly-applicable unambiguous law we should follow it, and not apply only those laws we approve of.

I'm not entirely convinced of his suggested loophole here though. I don't like describing the substitution of one result for exactly the same result as a "score adjustment", any more than I like the description of the only course available as an "alternative".

[Pict]

bluejak, on Mar 13 2010, 05:01 PM, said:

You seem to have misunderstood th OP. If partner had not hesitated he would be less likely to take a trick with his queen. Therefore his action of hesitating affected whether he could take a trick with his queen.

You are right that I misunderstood the OP.

There is a good reason for that. It is outside my frame of reference to decide unilaterally that partner has seriously breached the Laws by misleading declarer and that it is my duty to give up a trick to rectify this.

It is an interesting theoretical proposition and I should have spotted it as such. But in reality though we play as partners we are autonomous human beings.

Of course that would not be true if I was partnering a software program - though at the current capability of the technology I would strongly advise anyone against reading anything particular into a program's hesitation.

[bluejak]

VixTD, on Mar 17 2010, 02:58 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 05:08 PM, said:

A touch of pedantry has crept into several threads in IBLF, which I think is not helpful.  But in this case perhaps I shall have to give the pedantic answer.

Declarer was not damaged by the hesitation, but by declarer's own misapprehension.  If we followed the logic here we should have to adjust for any play however ridiculous after the opponents have done some breach of this Law.

Pedantically, yes, this is correct, and we have to go to Law 12C to adjust.  Fortunately Law 12C does not tell us to change the score when there is no damage, so the adjustment is to table score.

Ok, let's forget the pedantry.  In practical terms, Law 73F does not apply where a player damages himself, and is not damaged by an opponent.

I think any legal loopholes that can be found to get us out of making ridiculous rulings are helpful.

I recall a case where declarer made an illogical assumption that an opponent who asked a question must hold a significant card, played accordingly and asked for a score adjustment because she had been misled by the question. The director's ruling of no adjustment was overturned by the referee because of the wording of law 73F (the innocent player had drawn a false inference, whether she had reason to do so or not).

I have no idea if the referee thought the outcome a fair result or not, but I had some sympathy for him as he was presumably seeking to follow the dictum promoted by Bluejak that where there is a clearly-applicable unambiguous law we should follow it, and not apply only those laws we approve of.

I'm not entirely convinced of his suggested loophole here though. I don't like describing the substitution of one result for exactly the same result as a "score adjustment", any more than I like the description of the only course available as an "alternative".

I was not really suggesting a score adjustment of no adjustment, just not adjusting when there is no damage consequent on an infraction. And I do not consider that a loophole, but normal directing.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on Mar 15 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Well, this case strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 7 in the 2007 EBU Appeals Booklet and the majority of commenators did not share your view.

Richard Hills summed up that case very well:

Quote

The Director confused "a priori" with "a posteriori". "A priori" it was unlikely that East held the ace of hearts.
"A posteriori", after East's lengthy pause, it was guaranteed that East held the ace of hearts.

Appeal number 7 of EBU appeals 2007 strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 1 of EBU appeals 2008 2008 EBU Appeals Booklet where, with the noble exception of Jens Christiansen and Eric Landau, all the commentators were baying for the deposit.

I recall this case was discussed on one of these forums recently, although I can't find it now. Can someone tell me what the essential difference is between these two cases?

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 11:31 PM, said:

"Well, this case strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 7 in the 2007 EBU Appeals Booklet and the majority of commenators did not share your view."


I think that a singularly unfortunate comment, since people who do not check it will think that a majority of commentators suggested otherwise, which demonstrably they did not.  Perhaps you would like to re-read the case then adjust your comment.

For the benefit of those who haven't got time to look at the appeal in detail:

The table result was 4♠-1. The TD (Bluejak) let the table result stand but gave a PP to a defender who had taken "3 to 4 minutes" before playing from three remaining low cards in the suit led.

5 commentators [BS, NT, RG, RB and perhaps EL] agreed with the TD

8 commentators thought the score should have been adjusted for the offending side to 4♠= of whom 6 [AG, FH, JA, JBC, PL, RH] advocated adjusting to the same score for the non-offending side, whilst the other 2 [BR, TG] would have preferred a split score [defenders conceded 4♠= , whilst declarer keeps her 4♠-1]

I was under the impression that 8 out of 13 constitutes a majority!

[jallerton]

VixTD, on Mar 19 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

jallerton, on Mar 15 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

Well, this case strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 7 in the 2007 EBU Appeals Booklet and the majority of commenators did not share your view.

Richard Hills summed up that case very well:

Quote

The Director confused "a priori" with "a posteriori". "A priori" it was unlikely that East held the ace of hearts.
"A posteriori", after East's lengthy pause, it was guaranteed that East held the ace of hearts.

Appeal number 7 of EBU appeals 2007 strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 1 of EBU appeals 2008 2008 EBU Appeals Booklet where, with the noble exception of Jens Christiansen and Eric Landau, all the commentators were baying for the deposit.

I recall this case was discussed on one of these forums recently, although I can't find it now. Can someone tell me what the essential difference is between these two cases?

In the 2008 case, declarer (North) had a trump suit Axxxx in hand and dummy had KJ9x.

He cashed the ace (both followed low) and led a small one on which East played the 10. "North stated that East had hesitated before playing ♦10, an allegation strongly denied by East, who said he had played in his normal tempo, which he attempted to demonstrate."

The essential differences in the 2008 case are:

(i) there were disputed facts; the TD ruled that no hesitation had actually incurred.

(ii) At the critical point, declarer has seen three of the four missing diamonds and knows that there are only two possible layouts of the diamond suit left: East (the hand under the KJ9x) has to have started with either Q10x or 10x. Declarer knows East would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q105 or 105) he had been dealt. North knows that East knows without having to think about it, that there is no point in playing the Q with KJ left in dummy.

Contrast that with the other three cases mentioned in this thread. In these three cases the declarer was missing the ace in the suit led and the hesitation gave the misleading impression that the hesitator held the ace in the suit led.

P.S in the 2008 appeal, only 8 of the 13 commentators stated that they would have kept the deposit. 3 said they would have returned it and the other 2 did not state their opinion on the matter.

[bluejak]

In 2007 declarer assumed that the hesitation meant the player had the only thing that logically could lead to a hesitation. In 2008 declarer assumed the player was hesitating with something that he would not hesitate with - a completely different thing.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Mar 19 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

bluejak, on Mar 15 2010, 11:31 PM, said:

"Well, this case strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 7 in the 2007 EBU Appeals Booklet and the majority of commenators did not share your view."


I think that a singularly unfortunate comment, since people who do not check it will think that a majority of commentators suggested otherwise, which demonstrably they did not.  Perhaps you would like to re-read the case then adjust your comment.

For the benefit of those who haven't got time to look at the appeal in detail:

The table result was 4♠-1. The TD (Bluejak) let the table result stand but gave a PP to a defender who had taken "3 to 4 minutes" before playing from three remaining low cards in the suit led.

5 commentators [BS, NT, RG, RB and perhaps EL] agreed with the TD

8 commentators thought the score should have been adjusted for the offending side to 4♠= of whom 6 [AG, FH, JA, JBC, PL, RH] advocated adjusting to the same score for the non-offending side, whilst the other 2 [BR, TG] would have preferred a split score [defenders conceded 4♠= , whilst declarer keeps her 4♠-1]

I was under the impression that 8 out of 13 constitutes a majority!

I said said:

In practical terms, Law 73F does not apply where a player damages himself, and is not damaged by an opponent.

You replied said:

Well, this case strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 7 in the 2007 EBU Appeals Booklet and the majority of commentators did not share your view.

The comments of AG, BR, BS, EL, FH, JC, NT, PL, RG, RH, RB, TR do not disagree with my comments. A couple actually agree, but that is irrelevant.

The comments of JA do disagree with my assertion. One out of 13 does not constitute a majority, even if the one is yourself.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on Mar 19 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

In 2007 declarer assumed that the hesitation meant the player had the only thing that logically could lead to a hesitation. 

If I have read the case correctly, though, you still ruled against declarer on the grounds that the bidding meant the player would not have the only thing that could logically have led to the hesitation!

I strongly suspect that if I had found myself in the position the declarer was in then I would have concluded that the bidding only provided a strong indication one way, while the hesitation made it a certainty the other way. So I was very surprised to read the conclusion of the TD that the hesitation should not have misled the declarer.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on Mar 19 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

The essential differences in the 2008 case are:

(i) there were disputed facts; the TD ruled that no hesitation had actually incurred.

(ii) At the critical point, declarer has seen three of the four missing diamonds and knows that there are only two possible layouts of the diamond suit left: East (the hand under the KJ9x) has to have started with either Q10x or 10x. Declarer knows East would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q105 or 105) he had been dealt. North knows that East knows without having to think about it, that there is no point in playing the Q with KJ left in dummy.

My impression was that there was some doubt as to whether there had been a hesitation, so that alone would not have been a good reason for withholding the deposit.

I agree that East has no reason to think with either holding, and I certainly would not want to give North an adjustment, but I would hate to see East get away with duping North into taking the finesse by hesitating with a now-singleton 10. (I'm not suggesting our East hesitated deliberately, or even hesitated at all, just that if he did he should not gain from it.)

Should North have been misled? Players DON'T hesitate before playing singletons, they SHOULDN'T hesitate before playing one of two cards, even if there is only one sensible card to play. I can quite see why the hesitation (if there was one) would suggest to declarer that East had done something he SHOULDN'T have done, rather than something he WOULD NEVER HAVE DONE.

I don't object to the ruling in any way, just the suggestion to retain the deposit.