[pilowsky]

pran, on 2021-July-07, 04:42, said:

What about letting the player in question explain his delay (if it was excessive)?

It doesn't matter what the player says.
You can't infer anything from it one way or another.
People can say anything.
It only matters if there is an actual understanding based on the delay/scowl/toe-tap/coffee sip.
In which case, again, statistical or other methods may reveal a pattern.

Suppose you are asked to come to a table, and someone complains that an opponent picks up his coffee cup every time he wants his partner to lead a card from a suit that is different from the one originally led?
Now what?
The whole concept of awarding penalties on this basis is bonkers. It's as if Lewis Carroll wrote the Trial.

How about this for a test.
When someone suggests that a delay has a specific meaning, ask yourself what the possible specific meanings might be.
Make a list of all of these meanings (I can think of at least 10 immediately).
When you finish you'll be asleep and the problem is solved.

[pran]

pran, on 2021-July-07, 04:42, said:

What about letting the player in question explain his delay (if it was excessive)?

pilowsky, on 2021-July-07, 05:35, said:

It doesn't matter what the player says.
........................

Scaring.

That was the typical culture in (for instance) Nazi Germany, I hoped never to experience it again.

[blackshoe]

Anyone can draw inferences from just about anything. The question is whether the conclusion to which those inferences lead is correct — and I would agree that a bridge player who thinks he can correctly infer what is going on from the length of an opponent's "thinking time" is almost certainly wrong.

[sanst]

pilowsky, on 2021-July-07, 05:35, said:

It doesn't matter what the player says.

That’s downright ridiculous. A TD should establish the facts before deciding. Amongst those facts is the reason why the player did what he did. Whether you’re convinced or not, is something totally different, but you certainly should use the information when deciding. You’re stance seems to be “I don’t care what they say, shoot them anyway”.

[pilowsky]

sanst, on 2021-July-08, 04:16, said:

That's downright ridiculous. A TD should establish the facts before deciding. Amongst those facts is the reason why the player did what he did. Whether you're convinced or not, is something totally different, but you certainly should use the information when deciding. You're stance seems to be "I don't care what they say, shoot them anyway".

First, you say it's ridiculous.
Then you say the TD should establish the facts.
Then you say that to establish the 'facts', the TD should ask the player for a reason.
In what parallel universe (outside one populated by Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell) would a "reason" provided by a player in this situation be termed a "fact".
Is that like "A lot of people are saying that it's a terrible thing" is a "fact"?
Now, who's being ridiculous?
Where did you get this notion that things people tell you are "facts"?


My stance is that a "reason" provided by a bridge player is not a "fact".
Why do you think that electronic line detectors were introduced into tennis (and video referees into many other sports)?
Probably because they did not think that utterances from John McEnroe constituted what you would call "facts".

[pran]

What a person says is a fact, namely a fact of what he said (and the fact that he did say it).

whether what he said is true or false is a different question and (if necessary) up to the Director to judge.

[pilowsky]

You are right and wrong at the same time.
It is a 'fact' that someone says something.
After that, you run into murky territory.
Go back to the start and answer the question - in your own mind - of all the possible reasons why a person may take a certain amount of time to do - or not do something.
The whole idea that a third party - who was not present at the time - can infer anything from a pause is madness.
Maybe you've never been to Minnesota or seen a Pinter play.
It's just magical thinking to believe that you can see into the state of mind of anyone.
Outside a Bridge Club, I have never heard of the concept of "Directors" who can tell what you are thinking by the amount of time you take to think.
No surprise that it's a relatively unpopular game.

If you want people to spend less time thinking, put a clock on them as they do in Chess - a much more popular sport.
I hope the Italians beat the English next week - that's what I'm thinking.

[sanst]

pilowsky, on 2021-July-08, 15:43, said:

You are right and wrong at the same time.
It is a 'fact' that someone says something.
After that, you run into murky territory.
Go back to the start and answer the question - in your own mind - of all the possible reasons why a person may take a certain amount of time to do - or not do something.
The whole idea that a third party - who was not present at the time - can infer anything from a pause is madness.
Maybe you've never been to Minnesota or seen a Pinter play.
It's just magical thinking to believe that you can see into the state of mind of anyone.
Outside a Bridge Club, I have never heard of the concept of "Directors" who can tell what you are thinking by the amount of time you take to think.
No surprise that it's a relatively unpopular game.

If you want people to spend less time thinking, put a clock on them as they do in Chess - a much more popular sport.
I hope the Italians beat the English next week - that's what I'm thinking.

Your first sentence applies to your reasoning too. No director claims to be able to establish what a player was thinking when he did what he did. But back to the case in hand: the director should establish whether the player, ChCh, had a bridge reason to think as long as he did. Therefore he should ask the player why there was a pause. After that the TD decides whether or not the reason was a valid one. You don’t believe the player ‘on his blue eyes’ as we say in Dutch, but you can’t dismiss his answer out of hand.
You seem to miss a basic concept of bridge, namely that it is a MIND game. That makes it essentially different from physical sports, where the director, referee, umpire and the like are supposed to see what happens. In bridge thinking is essential to game and should be taken into consideration if necessary.
I don’t know about Australia, but here judges ask suspects what they were thinking when they are on trial. And they take that into consideration when establishing innocence or guilt - no juries overhere - and when sentencing. They don’t claim to be able to read the mind of the suspect either or to decide what he told was the truth.

[pran]

pilowsky, on 2021-July-08, 15:43, said:

If you want people to spend less time thinking, put a clock on them as they do in Chess - a much more popular sport.

As it happened several years ago I was directing a regional championship where we needed to be rather strict on the schedule: 8 boards per round for 7 rounds to be completed in one day.

So clearly visible for everybody in the room we had an overhead projector continuously displaying a timer counting down (each round) from 60 minutes to zero.

And the message to the players was clear: Penalty points will automatically be applied to both sides on any single board that was not reccorded in the electronic scoring system as completed within the 60 minutes allotted time.

(In order to avoid penalty for opponents' slow play the pair must have called the director {me} at the time of any threatening delay).

Result? Great satisfaction, no complaints, and the entire (all-day) event was completed on schedule.

[pilowsky]

pran, on 2021-July-09, 03:48, said:

As it happened several years ago I was directing a regional championship where we needed to be rather strict on the schedule: 8 boards per round for 7 rounds to be completed in one day.

So clearly visible for everybody in the room we had an overhead projector continuously displaying a timer counting down (each round) from 60 minutes to zero.

And the message to the players was clear: Penalty points will automatically be applied to both sides on any single board that was not reccorded in the electronic scoring system as completed within the 60 minutes allotted time.

(In order to avoid penalty for opponents' slow play the pair must have called the director {me} at the time of any threatening delay).

Result? Great satisfaction, no complaints, and the entire (all-day) event was completed on schedule.

QED

[lamford]

pran, on 2021-July-07, 04:07, said:

more important he apparently argued that his bridge reason was to deceive opponents by illegally varying his tempo.

Do you need to go to Specsavers? His only comment was:
ChCh replied, "Sorry, I was torn between two lines and they seemed identical."

Most of your replies seem to be based on some non-existent facts. Perhaps you should consider not posting on this thread any more.

[axman]

lamford, on 2021-July-05, 13:30, said:

Declarer is entitled to think about the hand until he has formed a plan.

I believe that a player is entitled to consider/think to form a plan. Not speaking to consequences for the manner by which he does so. Also, i believe that he is entitled to not be interrupted except for matters such as safety/health. As to the until business- that could be foggy notions.

[pran]

lamford, on 2021-July-05, 13:30, said:

Declarer is entitled to think about the hand until he has formed a plan.

axman, on 2021-July-10, 08:31, said:

I believe that a player is entitled to consider/think to form a plan. Not speaking to consequences for the manner by which he does so. Also, i believe that he is entitled to not be interrupted except for matters such as safety/health. As to the until business- that could be foggy notions.

Your use of the phrase 'I believe' here is commendable because

Law 73 D said:

. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and
unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may
work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner
in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are
authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.
2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or
gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a
singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation
from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).

(Observe the word 'unintentionally' in this law. It is there for a reason.)

[johnu]

pran, on 2021-July-08, 06:17, said:

What a person says is a fact, namely a fact of what he said (and the fact that he did say it).

whether what he said is true or false is a different question and (if necessary) up to the Director to judge.

False facts are aka alternative facts.

[lamford]

johnu, on 2021-July-10, 15:26, said:

False facts are aka alternative facts.

I thought they were called "Fake News".

[barmar]

pilowsky, on 2021-July-07, 04:09, said:

There is a widespread belief amongst some Bridge players - who obviously know nothing about "theory of mind" - that it is possible to tell what a person is thinking from the duration of their pauses.
You find these stories in a book by a Bridge Humorist because they are stories. They have no basis in reality.
If you are the sort of person that feels that you can draw inferences from the amount of time a person takes before playing a card, then you are mistaken.

And this is why there's a Law that says that you draw inferences at your own risk. But there's also a Law that says you're not allowed to try to deceive by varying tempo.

It does seem like these two Laws are at odds with each other. But not really. The first Law assumes that there was a bridge reason for the hesitation; if you guess the wrong reason, that's your own problem.

The second Law applies when there's no bridge reason -- you're not allowed to pretend that there is.

The classic violation of the second Law is hesitating with a singleton. The opponent is allowed to assume you have a choice of cards to play, but guessing why it took you so long to choose is at their own risk.

[mycroft]

I've avoided getting into this, for many reasons, but I think you can argue that "I was considering which of two lines were better" when both lines are zero percent absent misdefence becomes "which line prompts a misdefence better after giving the impression there's a legitimate line" which is a clear L73E1 violation (possibly the opponents are protected by E2). "so long as the deception is not emphasized by unwonted [] hesitancy".

I don't believe the Chimp. He knew there were no legitimate lines, so he went looking for one that might work? For five minutes? and then suddenly found this one? Luckily I don't have to believe him; five minutes to find a *psychological* play is unwonted, and definitely the psychological effect is emphasized.

This is another situation where the people who can try to slip one by by fast-playing gain an advantage at the table over this Chimp - people don't notice the lightning call/play the way they do the tank, so even if it is equally imProper, it works more often.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2021-July-12, 10:05, said:

I don't believe the Chimp. He knew there were no legitimate lines, so he went looking for one that might work? For five minutes? and then suddenly found this one? Luckily I don't have to believe him; five minutes to find a *psychological* play is unwonted, and definitely the psychological effect is emphasized.

I think without the remark there would be nothing you could do as a TD and his inevitable appeal would succeed; certainly if I was on the AC. He was in a 0% contract and looked for a slim chance. His thought was therefore for a bridge reason. However, the remark was an infraction, although he was replying to the TD, and it is not clear that the opponent should be taking advantage of that anyway, except at their own risk. If he had responded to the TD "sorry - that pesky windows update started and I had to force it to stop which always takes a few minutes", that would not have been a "demonstrable bridge reason" and you would presumably adjust. One problem is that the Laws are unsuitable for dealing with BITs online.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2021-July-14, 03:30, said:

certainly if I was on the AC.

You have a lot of faith in your ability to ensure the other members of the committee would vote the way you want them to vote. Not to say they wouldn't, just that I think your certainty that your presence on the committee would ensure it is misplaced.

[mycroft]

Balance of probabilities. This is not "innocent until proven guilty", nor is it "we can't work out what he was thinking if he doesn't tell us", nor is it "defender can just say nothing and require the prosecutor to prove their case."

Without the comment, we get "he really took minutes to 'find a line' that wasn't 0%? or did he 'take minutes' to create the impression that there might be a non-zero% line?" And the AC will decide which is more likely, based on what the Chimp answers when asked what he was thinking about.

Again, it's "unwonted hesitancy", not "demonstrable bridge reason" (or "hesitancy") in E1. Whether or not the opponents were E2 damaged by it and therefore "deserve" an adjusted score, the infraction can be rectified (or penalized, or both).