[lamford]

---

Teams. Opening Lead J♦. Table result 6S-1.

The above hand caused some acrimony at a North London club this week. North was a bit light for his Bergen raise - apparently he thought that 3D was stronger than 3C, although the CC had the methods as described correctly by SB, South. West led the jack of diamonds won by South who thought for 30 seconds or so before leading the jack of spades. West, who had just picked up his pint, had a quick gulp and then put it down and played low. SB ran it and East won and cashed the ace of clubs, and declarer claimed one off, at the same time calling the TD. "There was a noticeable break in tempo from West when I led the jack of spades", he averred, and quoted part of 73D1:

<snip>players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.<snip>

He continued: "West broke tempo with a singleton and could have been aware that his act of picking up his pint of beer would cause a BIT in a situation where particular care was needed".

West thought that SB had waited until he started to pick up his beer before employing his latest "Find the Lady" ruse, and he thought that SB drew the inference at his peril. SB resented this accusation, and claimed that he took the normal amount of time to plan the play. How do you rule?

[ahydra]

Isn't declarer meant to plan the play before calling for a card from dummy at trick one?

ahydra

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2015-April-02, 05:20, said:

Isn't declarer meant to plan the play before calling for a card from dummy at trick one?

Under which Law?

[manudude03]

The pint was already in West's hand when the spade was led? Unless West has 3 arms, he is never going to play in tempo here. Maybe the SB needs to learn the last part of 73D1.

"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"

So unless the SB can prove West picked up the pint to hide a BIT and that he didn't need refreshed, result stands, and I'm tempted to impose some sort of penalty to the SB under L74B5.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2015-April-02, 05:26, said:

The pint was already in West's hand when the spade was led? Unless West has 3 arms, he is never going to play in tempo here. Maybe the SB needs to learn the last part of 73D1.

"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"

So unless the SB can prove West picked up the pint to hide a BIT and that he didn't need refreshed, result stands, and I'm tempted to impose some sort of penalty to the SB under L74B5.

"Otherwise" refers to "when variations may work to the benefit of their side", not "when a drink is being taken from a pint of beer", therefore the last part of 73D1 does not apply here, as clearly a variation in this situation can work to the benefit of his side. And SB has already learnt the whole of that Law, and takes issue with your suggestion that his learning of the Laws is somehow incomplete.

There is no obligation on SB to show that West picked up the beer to hide a BIT, only for a TD to decide that he "could have been aware" that West's infraction could benefit his side.

[weejonnie]

I cannot see how West can know what SB's normal time of thinking is - SB presumably thinks all the time he is playing (note to TD - watch his declarer play surreptitiously over the rest of the evening), however West cannot be expected to know how long this time is going to be since he plays against SB only 4% of the time. Very few players are noted for the speed/ lack of in playing to the first trick.

In appeals cases, time when the players have been distracted e.g. by having kibitzers removed has been held as not thinking time and thus not contributory to a BIT. West seems to have acted in tempo when this lead was made.

Of course if West had looked at the opening lead, had a long sip of beer, humming and harring before playing a card then I would have more sympathy for SB.

Interestingly, I find that with many players a fast card is usually indicative of holding the Queen as they try and play too quickly to avoid giving away the position. (Obviously I do this at my own risk - and just emphasises the importance of playing in tempo,)

[Lanor Fow]

I don't think 73D1 applies.

Everyone at the table can see that the BIT is caused by the drink, not by anything else, and so given this cannot confuse declarer, it can't work to the benefit of the OS.

[manudude03]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 05:30, said:

"Otherwise" refers to "when variations may work to the benefit of their side", not "when a drink is being taken from a pint of beer", therefore the last part of 73D1 does not apply here, as clearly a variation in this situation can work to the benefit of his side. And SB has already learnt the whole of that Law, and takes issue with your suggestion that his learning of the Laws is somehow incomplete.

There is no obligation on SB to show that West picked up the beer to hide a BIT, only that he "could have been aware" that his infraction would benefit his side.

The laws don't mention how long you have to wait before you can take a drink if needed (the laws don't ever say you can't). I believe the spirit of the law was that it would only apply if there weren't any circumstances that would physically impede the ability to play in tempo. If we remove the pint and say West had a disability and needed about 10 seconds to find the singleton spade and play it and we got the same director call, we would surely rule result stands here, right?

If we say that he can't pick the pint up to refresh himself, where do we draw the line before he can do so? It looks like he waited 25-30 seconds here before he picked up the pint. What if it had been 45 seconds? 1 minute? 2 minutes?

In fact, I rather suspect that if West had Qxx and was a SB, we may well have seen a TD call if the contract had been made for pulling off a sominex coup.

[ahydra]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 05:26, said:

Under which Law?

Not a Law in the strict sense, but WB 8.73.2.1 states

"A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one[...] is recommended practice."

ahydra

[helene_t]

Would West break tempo with Qx here? Seem like it requires NS to play 4-card majors and South electing the play of ♠J from AJ65, AJ63 or AJ53.

Now suppose W had deliberately reached for his beer in order to jam the signal for the SB, would the SB have a case, then?

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2015-April-02, 06:20, said:

The laws don't mention how long you have to wait before you can take a drink if needed (the laws don't ever say you can't). I believe the spirit of the law was that it would only apply if there weren't any circumstances that would physically impede the ability to play in tempo. If we remove the pint and say West had a disability and needed about 10 seconds to find the singleton spade and play it and we got the same director call, we would surely rule result stands here, right?

I agree entirely if West had a disability, but then his normal tempo would be variable. It is pretty obvious that declarer has a trump guess when he does not draw trumps immediately at trick two, so an unscrupulous West could pick up his drink without the queen of spades and not do so with the queen of spades. If we thought that were the case, we would surely rule result stands here, right?

[lamford]

ahydra, on 2015-April-02, 06:31, said:

Not a Law in the strict sense, but WB 8.73.2.1 states

"A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one[...] is recommended practice."

ahydra

There is no obligation on anyone to read the White Book.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2015-April-02, 07:10, said:

Would West break tempo with Qx here? Seem like it requires NS to play 4-card majors and South electing the play of ♠J from AJ65, AJ63 or AJ53.

Running the jack would be the standard safety play with AJ9xx opposite K87x if he did not have a loser outside trumps; it does not matter of course what you play then with Qx as West, although covering is worse as declarer may have the 10 and be intending to rise. The other possible layout is J9xxx opposite K87x with no loser outside trumps. This time ducking with Qx is potentially fatal.

The correct game-theory strategy for the defender is not to pick up the pint and decide in advance what you are going to do with Qx, and to pick up the pint and create a BIT with a singleton or low doubleton. I suspect that a mixed strategy is optimal, where the skilled defender picks up the pint a different percentage of the time with different holdings.

[barmar]

I would simply rule that taking time to put down his drink does not constitute a BIT in the first place. If the player frequently drinks while playing, the time required to put down the drink so you can play a card is part of normal tempo, IMO.

SB is being even more ridiculous than he usually is.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2015-April-02, 10:00, said:

I would simply rule that taking time to put down his drink does not constitute a BIT in the first place. If the player frequently drinks while playing, the time required to put down the drink so you can play a card is part of normal tempo, IMO.

SB is being even more ridiculous than he usually is.

Please fix forum so I can rep your post.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 04:49, said:

Teams. Opening Lead J♦. Table result 6S-1. The above hand caused some acrimony at a North London club this week. North was a bit light for his Bergen raise - apparently he thought that 3D was stronger than 3C, although the CC had the methods as described correctly by SB, South. West led the jack of diamonds won by South who thought for 30 seconds or so, before leading the jack of spades. West, who had just picked up his pint, had a quick gulp and then put it down and played low. SB ran it and East won and cashed the ace of clubs, and declarer claimed one off, at the same time calling the TD. "There was a noticeable break in tempo from West when I led the jack of spades", he averred, and quoted part of 73D1: players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. He continued: "West broke tempo with a singleton and could have been aware that his act of picking up his pint of beer would cause a BIT in a situation where particular care was needed". West thought that SB had waited until he started to pick up his beer before employing his latest "Find the Lady" ruse, and he thought that SB drew the inference at his peril. SB resented this accusation, and claimed that he took the normal amount of time to plan the play. How do you rule?

---

Normal tempo is different for you when holding a glass; just as it would be if you placed your hand face-down on the table whenever an opponent tanked. Arguably, at trick two, declarer might have known that by waiting for LHO to take a sip from his drink before leading, he could disconcent his LHO and elicit a "tell", Probably irrelevant to any ruling but, when RHO has ♣A (as here), declarer may need to ruff twice in dummy, so SB's early trump-play seems peculiar.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-April-02, 10:00, said:

I would simply rule that taking time to put down his drink does not constitute a BIT in the first place. If the player frequently drinks while playing, the time required to put down the drink so you can play a card is part of normal tempo, IMO.

SB is being even more ridiculous than he usually is.

SB stated to the TD that neither opponent normally took a drink during the play of the hand except when they were dummy, or between hands before taking their cards out of the wallet, so this BIT was a deviation from normal tempo.

I observed the number of times people took a sip as defender last night, and over 25 boards, there were 30 "drink-hands", totalling 390 "drink-opportunities" defining a drink-hand as one defender with a drink for the duration of the play and a drink-opportunity as a card played by a defender having a drink in front of him. On no occasion did I see a defender stop to take a drink during the play, although there were no breaks by declarer or a defender of as long as 30 seconds. It is normal when you have a drink to consume it between hands not during them.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2015-April-02, 10:38, said:

Probably irrelevant to any ruling but, when RHO has ♣A (as here), declarer may need to ruff twice in dummy, So SB's early trump-play seems peculiar.

Not really; he should play two rounds of trumps before ruffing two red cards, to reduce the chance of an over-ruff. He might well have got the trumps wrong anyway. Would you rule differently if SB had sat West with all the facts otherwise the same?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 07:17, said:

There is no obligation on anyone to read the White Book.

Or to accept its recommendations.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 10:51, said:

On no occasion did I see a defender stop to take a drink during the play, although there were no breaks by declarer or a defender of as long as 30 seconds.

That is a sad indictment of the modern game.

Quote

It is normal when you have a drink to consume it between hands not during them.

Nonsense. It is normal when you have a drink to consume it at the table and use the breaks between hands to replenish it.