[AL78]

I direct a couple of times a month at my local club and have been doing for many years. Most situations I can deal with, but yesterday at the end of the session a player brought a situation to my attention which, if I had been called to the table, I would have been unsure what to do.

East was playing out the hand and played a spade which North followed in tempo. North held a spade doubleton. When declarer later played a second round of spades, North stopped and thought for a long time before playing his now singleton spade. This didn't throw declarer off his line but he was unhappy about this and called North out over it. South responded by saying her partner is entitled to think. North is notorious for slow play.

Whilst South is correct here it is also true that a defender is not allowed to tank with a singleton with the intention of deceiving declarer. Had I been called to the table I would have no idea of North's motivation, only North knows that for sure. I might have made a polite recommendation to North that if they need to think about the hand when they have to play a singleton, put the card face down and announce they need to think about the hand, not this trick, then their intention can never be in doubt. There were no other players experienced in directing that I could theoretically have called on for support. What do you think I should have done had I been called?

[DavidKok]

I am not a director.

In de past I've made the same mistake North made, thinking (about future tricks) while my play to the current trick is clear. It was not my intent to deceive, but obviously declarer assumed that I had an important decision to make on the current trick. At times I've received an adjusted score (average-minus, usually) for this. I've since learned to play to the trick in tempo and request that we leave the cards face-up at the end of the trick, at which point I will do my thinking. I have no idea whether these two actions (adjusted score for my thinking during the trick, and requesting a 'thinking break' at the end of the trick) are the lawful solutions, but nobody has complained yet.

At times declarer (or, on rare occasions, a defender) will want to sniff out a card by playing in tempo, e.g. win a trick in the hand and immediately lead back another suit, forcing LHO to play small in tempo or reveal they hold an honour by pausing/playing it. As far as I know this is considered good bridge, and my request would inadvertently block this strategy. So I'm not quite happy with my current approach. On the other hand I simply don't know what the appropriate time is to plan my play if everybody slams down cards at speed and I know what to play now, but don't have a defensive strategy ready for future tricks.

Pausing to think with a singleton is an extreme example. It is clear what you are going to play to the current trick, and I believe the director should assign an adjusted score. More ambiguous situations exist where it is not so clear.

[sfi]

Law 73D:

Quote

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. [...]

Law 73E:

Quote

2. If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

These two snippets tell us that variation in tempo is not by itself an infraction. However, if it misleads the opposition then the director should be considering an adjusted score. It doesn't matter whether or not the player was thinking about the action it suggests, or even whether they were thinking about the hand at all. David's solution - enforcing a pause to work out the hand at a time when it's not tempo sensitive - is legal and a good way to plan the hand. If it stuffs up the opponent's attempt to create a situation where they would otherwise get information from a slow play, too bad for them.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-22, 04:03, said:

At times declarer (or, on rare occasions, a defender) will want to sniff out a card by playing in tempo, e.g. win a trick in the hand and immediately lead back another suit, forcing LHO to play small in tempo or reveal they hold an honour by pausing/playing it. As far as I know this is considered good bridge, and my request would inadvertently block this strategy. So I'm not quite happy with my current approach. On the other hand I simply don't know what the appropriate time is to plan my play if everybody slams down cards at speed and I know what to play now, but don't have a defensive strategy ready for future tricks.

This depends a lot on what is meant by "immediately lead back". If the lead is made in a blink before all players have turned and placed the card played to the previous trick , then it is not good bridge but undue haste, which is an infraction of Law 73 (although it takes courage to stand up to those who intentionally pull such stunts, both as an opponent and a TD).

Law 73A2 said:

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

(my emphasis)

[barmar]

If you intentionally vary your tempo for the express purpose of inducing a "tell" by an opponent, this seems like a clear violation of "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". Deliberate practices like this and "coffeehousing" are what that law is intended to prohibit.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2023-February-23, 15:05, said:

If you intentionally vary your tempo for the express purpose of inducing a "tell" by an opponent, this seems like a clear violation of "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". Deliberate practices like this and "coffeehousing" are what that law is intended to prohibit.

Agreed. But even if your tempo is habitually very fast, you are violating the spirit of Law 73 if you lead a new suit before the opponent has turned his card, IMO (admittedly and unfortunately the letter of the law neither forbids nor allows this, as far as I can see, and many expert players consider it "good bridge").

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-February-23, 16:30, said:

[...] and many expert players consider it "good bridge").

Really? If someone does that to me, I sometimes enjoy breaking up the tempo by asking to see the last trick again. I haven't come across too many genuine experts who try this tactic on a regular basis - it's more likely to be a wannabe player in my experience.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-February-23, 16:39, said:

Really? If someone does that to me, I sometimes enjoy breaking up the tempo by asking to see the last trick again. I haven't come across too many genuine experts who try this tactic on a regular basis - it's more likely to be a wannabe player in my experience.

You're right, expert was excedingly generous. But they are many.

[mycroft]

AL78, on 2023-February-22, 02:39, said:

I direct a couple of times a month at my local club and have been doing for many years. Most situations I can deal with, but yesterday at the end of the session a player brought a situation to my attention which, if I had been called to the table, I would have been unsure what to do.

Good to do this; good to be concerned about getting it right (the Law, sure, but more so the atmosphere).

sfi has quoted the Laws. What I want to do is look at the rest of the ruling.

Quote

East was playing out the hand and played a spade which North followed in tempo. North held a spade doubleton. When declarer later played a second round of spades, North stopped and thought for a long time before playing his now singleton spade.

I think your problem is intent. Intent is an issue with many ruling situations. People get very upset when anyone claims they did something wrong *with intent*, and "get very upset" at higher levels can get to lawsuit territory. Living in the UK with their libel laws, that may also be an issue at lower levels. In which case, I have some good news for you.

The lawmakers, as often as they can, phrase the Law in ways that do not require you to ascribe intent. Deliberately. Law 73D is a perfect example of this - "players should be particularly careful" in situations like only one card in the suit or other situations where the tempo could decieve. Notice that intent to deceive is not a part of whether the tempo issue is an infraction. It doesn't matter if they were inattentive, or just then realized they should have thought last trick or trick 1, or whether they are the biggest coffeehouser north of the Channel.

Your ruling shouldn't even imply intent on the part of the hesitator (you can, as part of your education, bring up the "Probst cheat" - someone who *is* trying something underhanded, and "just by chance" does the same thing the player, in all innocence, did. But that is so you can explain that the Law says it's the act, not the intent, that is the issue).

Quote

This didn't throw declarer off his line but he was unhappy about this and called North out over it. South responded by saying her partner is entitled to think.

And why was the director not called at this point? Okay, yes, I know why. "We didn't want to disturb the playing director, as there wasn't a problem" (in which case, why mention it?) or "we didn't want to raise the seriousness with a Director call" (sure). But we all know the real reason - "While *I wasn't* caught by it, lesser players might be; you did something bad, and I want you to know you did something bad and should feel bad. And inferior to me, a Real Bridge Player." With possibly a side note of "I am insulted by your implication that I'm not good enough that this trick would work."

And South fell right into East's game. Instead of "Director, my opponent seems to have an issue with my partner's play on the last hand" (translation: "If you want to play these games, you can play them in public"), or even "if there's an issue, you can call the Director" (which never works, it just gets "well *I'm* too good to get caught by it" in response. Remember: "you did something bad and you should feel bad".) he went for the "bridge is a thinker's game" defence. Which, while true, doesn't mean you get to avoid 73D - there are times to think, and before the first trump play would have been fine, and on the first discard would have been fine. This one was not.

This is the oft-mentioned problem with so-called "friendly games" or games where "we shouldn't bother the director" (because he's playing, for something this minor, whatever). The director's job is to resolve these issues when they come up. If the director isn't used to resolve them, rules still end up getting enforced - by this kind of implied intimidation tactics, or "we don't do that in this game" or whatever. Worst is "I could call the director on this, but I won't." And those rules are frequently not the Laws: here, what East wants isn't the game to be played properly, or to get damage rectified - it's to admonish the opponents for not playing "correctly" and show that he's better than them. And South fell for it.

Quote

North is notorious for slow play.

Which, while annoying, is irrelevant here. As South said, "bridge is a thinker's game", and it wasn't that North was thinking, it was when. Now, if North always takes 5 seconds to make every play, and East saw 5 seconds for the first play as "normal", but the same 5 seconds for the second play as "a tank with a singleton", then fine. But we all know that's not all that happened - the first one may have been slow, but the second was slower.

Quote

Whilst South is correct here it is also true that a defender is not allowed to tank with a singleton with the intention of deceiving declarer. Had I been called to the table I would have no idea of North's motivation, only North knows that for sure.

You are exactly right about that last. And absolutely he can't tank with a singleton with the intent of deceiving. If he did tank deliberately to deceive, and that can be proven, that is a *really big* problem - one bigger than what you as director have the power to do anything about. You report it, with your evidence, to the club management, and let Conduct and Ethics deal with it.

But that's not what the Law says (which, as I say, is very good for you). The Law says that players should be especially careful in situations where *variation may be of benefit to their side*, and for whatever reason, in the canonical case, North wasn't careful. Now, and only now, 73E kicks in - did it cause damage? No, says East. Good to know, score stands.

"But," I fully expect to hear from East, "he shouldn't do that anyway." Of course I do - it sounds to East like South called the director and therefore East has failed at his goal, which is to ensure that North feels bad. Now we deal with the other half of it, and now, we ask North what he was thinking about on the second trump, and why he thought about it then and not before or after. I expect to hear something like "I realized I was going to have to make a discard or two, and wanted to work out what they were going to be now to minimize the amount of information I gave declarer with the tempo of my discards." Well, why not on the first trump? "I didn't realize it then. Yeah, I should have." That's my guess, it could be any of many things, but it doesn't much matter to my point.

Because you really don't care what North actually *says* in answer to the questions. As many have said - and it is true - a large majority of players, when asked why they did something by the director, will tell (a rosy image of) the truth, but that's not what you're really looking for here. You are going to use the answer, and how well the player paints his side, and your knowledge of him from experience, to come up with your best guess on what was actually going on. And the strength and manner of the procedural penalty you are going to hand out to North (not to accrue to E/W) will depend on that analysis.

It is very likely to be education. Either "you have to be careful here, because... You need to try to remember to think earlier - there wouldn't have been an issue if you did it on the first trump - or resign yourself to thinking later, on the first discard, no matter what information that passes to declarer." or "please be aware of this. You are a slow player, and you are allowed to think, but you have to be careful when you think, and try to get a couple of tricks ahead." or whatever. If you feel even a whiff of intent, or a manner of "I don't care, I'm going to do what I always do", then you add to the education a warning that if it happens again, there is likely to be a matchpoint penalty (or, "the regulations allow/expect me to give a 10th board penalty here. But I'm reasonably convinced you didn't realize the size of the problem, so this time I'll waive it", which says the same thing, but slightly stronger). And if this player seems to be happy to keep picking up warnings because it doesn't cost him, then assign the standard penalty - and make sure the other directors or the club management know that you did, and why.

But most likely it'll be education. You could suggest the "play face down" thing (but many players are irritated by this habit, because it means *they* don't get to think ; I am irritated by this habit, because it is not rare that after thinking about the whole hand, the player picks up his "played" card and plays another one). You can suggest that he play, and request/require the trick stay up so that he can see/think then - and ensure his partner, at least, abides by that request (for 66A reasons). You can suggest that he pay more attention to when to think and try to notice it earlier or leave it until the pause is less likely to deceive declarer. Or whatever seems appropriate.

But the two keys to get out of this almost situation are:

• Intent rarely matters in rulings. Things happen, and if they're infractions, they can be rectified, no matter whether the player meant to do the thing or not - or why the player meant to do the thing. Use that to your advantage - RTFLB at the table works well for this. Make sure that your rulings are not phrased in a way that intent seems to matter, and especially do not let any beliefs that there was intent leak out into your ruling - you are absolutely right that that will lead to serious problems. The more mechanical your rulings are, the easier it is to defuse the emotions from the situation. And that's your second job - after ensuring the game runs and runs to the Laws - making sure that the emotions don't get to the point where it disrupts the game or causes lasting damage.
  
• You do need to be able to guess at intent, though, and finesse your rulings around what players are trying to do that isn't "play proper bridge to the Laws". But know that the "non-offender" could easily be the person whose intent you have to attempt to thwart.

[mycroft]

Obviously the big one where intent does matter is 25A. And unfortunately, 23 working out "what the player intended to convey with their BooT/IB" is necessary to rule on Comparable Calls. But most - "a card that is X must be played", "one's own misinformation, when realized, must be corrected by the end of the auction" (as opposed to the previous "when realized" - again, we now no longer have to rule on "when the player realized their misexplanation/misAlert"), "gambling action which if unsuccessful it might have hoped...", even Law 16B1a (although it's more clear in 73's version, another "must carefully avoid" phraseology) - don't.

And note that even though I have assigned intent to many of the players in your story, the ruling doesn't say anything about intent. It should be obvious from the way the ruling happens that East is *also* getting ruled on (not against, no, but still), without having to ask "so, why did you decide to complain about 'something that wasn't important and didn't cause damage', rather than call the Director?" If it happens often enough by the same person, sure, ask. And point out that 74A2 is on the same page as 73D, never mind 9B1 and 10A. But it shouldn't have to get that far, should it, unless there's a culture of non-Legal rule enforcement in the game...

[pescetom]

Kudos to you for clearly affronting intent, which is one elephant in the room of bridge law.
I have only one divulgence from what you specifically say, and even then I recognize that your position is defendable in terms of law... but that also reflects a vulnerability of the laws, IMO.

mycroft, on 2023-February-24, 21:38, said:

You are exactly right about that last. And absolutely he can't tank with a singleton with the intent of deceiving. If he did tank deliberately to deceive, and that can be proven, that is a *really big* problem - one bigger than what you as director have the power to do anything about. You report it, with your evidence, to the club management, and let Conduct and Ethics deal with it.

Do you really see this as a severe breach of Conduct and Ethics, such that a local penalty (and recording) is not enough?
Quite honestly I see worse in every game of soccer/<name your team sport> I (continue to) watch.
73D2 which specifically covers this hesitation is a 'may not' offence, which I think means penalty more often that not.
Laws apart, even if intentional it doesn't seem *that* terrible to me, partner and agreements are not involved and opponent has to be a fool, for starters.
It stinks, it's not allowed, it gets a penalty.


The underlying bigger discussion is about your possible counter-argument of 72B1, which says that one "must not" intentionally infringe a law. Which brings us back to the real issue of intent and bridge as "a gentlemen's game" rather than a sport played by humans with all their weaknesses. I find it difficult to see how we can seriously and workably define *any* intentional infringement of sport rules as "a serious matter indeed", even though like you I admire the attempts of the law to work around the matter to the benefit of TD. To put an infraction of 73B2 on the same plane as an intentional 73D2 is ludicrous as I see it.

[mycroft]

[oops, small question, "short answer". Sorry. I'll put a TL;DR in another post]
I understand your argument, and you're right, we're looking at the same issues with different eyes, not actually disagreeing. Your comment about 72B1 is right on. I'll even add 72C (the old Law 23). Yes, there are bad and worse deliberate violations of the proprieties, and I'm not going to argue that the club coffeehouser or player of "games I haven't been explicitly told aren't legal yet" or intimidator of novices or... are the same gravity as the high-level 73B2 incidents. But the proprieties weren't Laws before 1973 (just an appendix to them) and that changed because of the presence of players who didn't mind being known as boors, provided they were known as *boors that win*. And even then it was affecting attendance. (Cue the story in the Machlin book about the director that "seeded" all the ethically dubious pairs into one of the 5 sections he was selling).

To me, if someone did something wrong, for whatever reason, we rule. If it caused damage to the opponents, we issue a rectification. If it caused damage to this game, we issue a procedural penalty (of whatever sort). If it's something that will go away if the offender realizes what a problem it is or could be (or didn't know it was an offence), we educate. If it wasn't a huge damage to the game, and won't happen again, we warn. If it was drastic damage to the game, we penalize. (and I do see that this philosophy, combined with my interest in running the "best game", means that I issue more actual MP penalties to people who move boards to the wrong place than to those whose actions cause problems like the OP's "in all innocence" (image: mycroft re-zeroing his BS meter). Which isn't a great look. Luckily, even then it might be one a year.)

But if someone does something that is damaging to *the bridge club*, or to *the game of bridge*, that requires a response beyond what the director of the game can do (unless, as is very frequent in North America, the director and the club management are the same person). If I know that it was deliberate, but I can't show evidence, fine. If I can, though, then it's a necessity that it go beyond me - especially if the correct response (suspensions, public notice, ...) might trigger landsharks. The club gets to decide if this behaviour is welcome in their game, and if not, what they're going to do about it; and then I get to decide if I feel comfortable continuing to direct in the club's game.

And you don't think that deliberate coffeehousing is damaging to "the bridge club" or "the game of bridge", and point at diving in La Liga "every game" as evidence. Well, one of the reasons that soccer has the reputation it has over here (okay, in English-speaking America, I'm in México for another couple of weeks) is all those damn cheaters in the game, and it's like the referees are as blind (and effective) as the ones in the WWE. One of the reasons that every time there is a comparison between bridge ruling and other games, "someone" tries to shut it down (and he isn't wrong), is that we have decided that, "game for gentlemen" or no, we don't tolerate that kind of thing, and it doesn't matter what soccer|lacrosse|NFL football|cricket has decided about it.. And, remembering the common behaviour of the club games in 1989 in Calgary and 1996 in Waterloo, even if we haven't got there yet, I'm very happy for where we have gone, and I *don't* want to go back.

C&E deals with people violating 73B2, sure. And any particular club might get one of those in its lifetime. But it also should deal with the much more common stuff that also are deliberate violations of the Proprieties, done with the expectation that it will improve their score (or "win the actual game being played" as I've said before. Whatever that is.) And those that are deliberate violations of the Proprieties, from people who aren't doing it for any reason other than "that's how they were trained to act and react." (although there, again, the penalty should be designed to break that training rather than strictly punish). Because they are just as corrosive an element to *that club* that the collusive cheaters are. Yes, I know, at world-class level, with Championship trophies on the line, collusive cheating is a bigger deal and also more likely to happen. And if WC-level was the focus of my directing or playing (or in this thread, teaching), it would be more of a priority for me. But it's not. The Pro Scene can and does take care of itself. And if the local clubs die off because of "the little things", the Pro Scene (well, those that don't run clubs themselves) won't even notice. But the OP, and me, and hundreds of other directors, will, to our detriment.

Frankly, if I only "know" it was deliberate, I'm still telling the other directors and the chair of C&E about it. I'll tell them why I feel that way, and what about it means that I don't have sufficient evidence to bring it up formally. Because it never just happens once; and even with a PP in MPs, if one in 10 tables notice and one in 5 of those call, even then it might be one of someone else's games, and it might not quite trigger their "I can't say it, but that was deliberate, you know it and I know it" bell. And if they have 3 or 4 directors that they can do the "oh it was just a mistake" dance with, and as I say, they get to do it 40-50 times before the dance takes place, THEY WIN. And my game - and everyone else's game in that club, which I'm probably playing in - gets that little bit grubbier. And that's not even counting the people that learn from that behaviour (after all, it's the "better players" that are doing this) and start emulating it from innocence or greed.

I have issues with M:tG's penalty policy, even at the non-Professional level. It seems to me that careless or "we all know what he meant" issues get overpenalized - and all Warnings, and it's easy to pick up a Warning, get logged all the way back to Redmond. But then I see the Alex Bertoncinis, and the stories of whenever a Judge "had to" penalize him for one of his actions, he would always attempt to argue the Warning down to a Caution (which wasn't logged)... As the writer of that says, what kind of player "habitually asks for the downgrade. Doesn’t hurt him at all, there’s no opportunity cost,"? The kind that plans on doing it again. So, if it's an issue I think I can deal with, I deal with it. If it's an issue that I don't think I'll be able to deal with alone, I deal with my part of it and pass the rest on to others (the DIC, the rest of the directing staff at the club, the C&E chair, ...) Not passing the buck, as much as ensuring that when it happens again, it's not "just a once-in-a-lifetime incident" (or, more than once unfortunately, finding out from said DIC, directing staff, ... that mine is the "not just a once-in-a-lifetime incident" that triggers further penalties).

One of the joys of directing is that in situations like the OPs, where it appears you're going to have to mind-read or your ruling will accuse the offender of intent, you just don't have to. "you need to be particularly careful...you didn't take sufficient care...it caused damage to the opponents, so we adjust the score." Whether they were inattentive, malicious, or deliberately trying something, doesn't matter to you or the ruling.

One of the nasties of directing, even (and possibly especially) at the club level, is that when it does start to matter, all the "suspicions" and "cases that seemed to be one-offs" and all the rest you get to be on the record for. Which, if it does lead to severe penalties, can be bad for your social life. And which, if it doesn't lead to severe penalties, can be just as bad for your social life, *and* there's still someone of, at least, dubious ethics in your game. Worst yet, if C&E sides with the infractor, you still get all the social fallout, but now are tagged with "spreading unsubstantiated rumours" yourself, or "trying to get [well-liked player] kicked out of the club, because of [tiny little thing]".

I have the joy of working two jobs where "if you don't love it, get out now, while you can. Because the crap will push you out eventually if you don't." I do.

[mycroft]

okay, short answer.

Anyone who deliberately and with intent hesitates with a singleton, well, that's not the only thing he does. Intentionally fast-pass preempts, and then when called on the 7-second think this time, knows he'll get the "he's allowed 10 seconds" story? All of the wonderful "signalling" methods that were the original reason for screens? Maybe just a "little joke" after taking the opponents for 1100.

Whether it's as bad as "collusive cheating", whether it's even effective (rather than just irritating), whether it even works - it affects the club negatively, and needs to be cleaned up. If it's deliberate, yes, it is as much an Ethics issue as card-clocking or trying to peek at the opponents' cards. Frankly, probably more, given that the punters won't notice the card-clocking, but they will notice being coffeehoused, or distracted, or sominex coup'ed, or fast-played out of another board by that guy. Or eventually, "I don't like going to his table, because he's always so rude" becomes "I'm not going to go to the club today, because they're so rude". If it's not deliberate, it's still an Ethics issue, because it's not a one-off, and one's behaviour needs changing, even if one doesn't realize they're doing it. To the players who don't come back, it doesn't matter if they're doing it to "get that little extra edge" or just because they're a sexist pig (or an "upper class snob", or a "as long as you realize it's not actually Bridge, you can enjoy a club game", or...)

David Stevenson's quote from years ago (paraphrased) applies:
If they do something wrong in the Proprieties, it's improper.
If they do something improper knowing it's wrong, it's unethical.
If they do something unethical with the intention to gain a benefit from it, it's cheating.

Conduct and Ethics should get involved at least by the second stage, as evidenced by the name.

[mycroft]

okay, final one (famous "last" words)[*].

I frequently say here that the correct response to "something happened at the table, what do I do?" is "call the director, tell her what happened, and let her handle it. And accept her decision." As a player, you don't have to know whether something that "feels wrong" is wrong, or a problem, or what the law being broken is, or what the solution pattern is. You just pass it to the person who does that, and let them handle it.

As far as C&E issues go, I'm just saying the exact same thing, but as a director. You don't need to decide how serious the issue is, or investigate history, or know what penalty to apply. You just have to report it to the people who do have to know this, and let them handle it. And then decide if you will accept their decision, or direct (or play) somewhere else. As a director, I don't have to care whether this is as serious as [issue over there]. I just have to realize that it's something that affects more than just my game, and pass it to the people who are responsible for "more than just my game".

(And people wonder why I don't own my own club. Or want to be on anything but an advisory role in club management or Ethics committees.)

Spoiler

I feel I'm getting into Douglas Adams territory. And I'm also feeling that as frequently, he said it better:

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."