BBO Discussion Forums: Remonstrable - BBO Discussion Forums

This was the situation when South played the last ♣ from the dummy. He knew that East had 3 ♠ cards and 2 ♦ cards left. If I was South and saw East pitching a ♦ after thinking for a minute, I would be sure that he as not the ♦K, because everybody knows that you have to play a ♦ immediately if you are going to bare the king. First thinking and then baring the king is something normal club level players do, but not true experts. So I would faithfully cross to the hand in ♠ and take the ♦-finesse. If the finnesse fails because he has really bared the king after thinking about it, I would be really embarrassed and call the director because East, the expert, behaved like an ordinary player in order to fool me.

Apart from that, I really believe that the right to think whenever I have a bridge reason trumps all obligations not to mislead opps. Nowhere in the Laws it is mentioned that I have the obligation to take a thinking tank some tricks before the problem has fully evolved in order to avoid that opps are misled. I rather think that they still find a way to be misled if I think in advance.

Karl

mink, on 2013-April-11, 12:07, said:

+1

mink, on 2013-April-11, 12:07, said:

This goes just a bit too far. The relevant law is

Quote

This law clearly shows that the right to think when one has a bridge reason does not trump all obligations. One still has an obligation to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side".

What mink seems to be saying here is that you are allowed to play poker with declarer here if you happen to have any reasonable reason for thinking. That is not bridge as I know it, nor I think supported by the laws.

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-12, 04:34, said:

I don't think that is what he was saying at all. I think he was saying that if you have something genuine to think about, you should be able to.

I know there are things that I would need time to work out, that other posters on this forum would not. I do not think that I deserve to be ruled against in such a case. For that matter, I know there are other players who would need time over things that I do not; and I would not seek a ruling over it. What about you Zel? Can you see everything as quickly as gnasher, or Josh or Justin? If you are playing them, should you be ruled against in such a case where you do think?

billw55, on 2013-April-12, 06:16, said:

I think it depends whether it is a situation where "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side". If it is then you should be ruled against, even though you were genuinely thinking.

So, either think more quickly, or play in events that gordontd is directing.

lamford, on 2013-April-12, 06:23, said:

If this is really the practical result of the rule, then I think it is an absolutely terrible, abominable rule. What is the point of playing if we are not allowed to think over the best play, when we really do need to?

billw55, on 2013-April-12, 06:57, said:

I think if the rule were "no justifiable reason for the action" that would cover your legitimate concern that when needing to think one might be ruled against. The test should be not just whether someone was thinking about a bridge action, but whether he should have been.

billw55, on 2013-April-12, 06:16, said:

I am probably one of the slowest players you will ever meet. That said, what I try to do is to huddle every now and then when the situation is not time-sensitive and plan what I will do in advance. Also, at the level I play at (endplays and squeezes are very rare) it is often good enough to play the second best card in tempo. Perhaps I would feel differently about it if I was playing with the big boys and needed a long think on almost every card. I certainly would not try to play at Andy/Josh/Justin's pace though. The key is just to do your (extra) thinking at times where it is not deceptive.

Why do people keep accusing me of playing quickly? My teammates usually bring a book to read whilst they're waiting to score up.

Perhaps Lamford's example was ill-chosen, or perhaps he should have told us something about East's ability as a player, but I think we're getting distracted from the point that I think he was trying to make. Maybe it's better considered in abstract terms:

A defender has a bridge problem. We would expect this particular player to take a short time to solve the problem. Instead, he spends a much longer time thinking about it. Declarer assumes that he was thinking about something else, and goes wrong as a result. Does declarer have redress under Law 23?

blackshoe, on 2013-April-11, 20:42, said:

A phrase like "It is desirable, though not always required, ..." should not be part of any law, bridge or otherwise. The Law should tell me what I am allowed to do, and what I am not allowed to do. But this phrase renders everything that comes next to a vagueness and causes different interpretations. The same is true when I am required to "be particularly careful". It does not say what to do if I really have to think in order to solve a current bridge problem, and happen to recognize that thinking may mislead opp (btw. I only might recognize that it MAY mislead opps, as maybe different opps might draw quite the opposite conclusions from my thinking, as this thread shows.) Am I allowed to think now, or means "being careful" that I have to make a decision without thinking or, if I already did think some time and it suddenly strikes my mind that my thinking might mislead opps, chose the alternative that is less misleading for them instead of the alternative that is likely the best for me?

And what if I never imagined that my thinking might mislead opps? Can I still be made responsible for not trying hard enough to envision what might be going on in my opps' minds?

Karl

I think that if a player can see that a tempo variation will work to her/his side's advantage and then makes such a variation outside of "a reasonable time" in thinking about the problem, then they should be a ruled against. What is "a reasoable time"? That is a judgement call to be made by the TD from knowledge of the (class of) player involved. I base this interpretation on 73D1, which uses the word otherwise, suggesting to me that unintentionally varying one's tempo in tempo-sensitive situations is to be considered a potential infraction.

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 08:04, said:

heheh, no offense intended. I only used you as an example because (1) you were mentioned in this context earlier in the thread, and (2) I believe that you play at a significantly higher level than I do. Ergo, at least some things that are obvious to you will require thought for me.

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 08:04, said:

I think East's ability is at most average, and his genuine thoughts at the time were probably typical of many average players.

I believe the purpose of the "demonstrable bridge reason" clause is to prohibit coffeehousing -- hesitating when there's nothing bridge-related to think about, particularly if the intent is to mislead declarer.

I don't think the lawmakers intended that phrase to require directors to judge how quickly players should be able to make decisions. If the player could have done their thinking earlier, but didn't plan ahead, then they still have a bridge reason to think when the decision point comes up.

Does it make sense to construe any laws as requiring play with a particular level of expertise? The whole point of playing a game is to determine who is better at it. Saying that a player has broken a rule if they didn't plan ahead adequately puts too much of a burden on players, I think.

dammit barmar fix it so we can rep you !!

Barmar has a point As long as you have two or more cards in a suit, I suppose you can usually demonstrate a bridge-reason for tanking. For example if Roy Welland had played his pips more carefully against Helness, he might not have needed to appeal.

What if you take "The tanker believed that he had a Bridge Reason" argument to an extreme? What about a singleton?

How would Barmar rule in this case. You hold ♠ A 3 ♥ Q J 2 ♦ 6 5 4 3 ♣ 6 5 4 3
Against RHO's 6♠ contract, you lead a ♣ to declarer's ace.
Decarer immediately leads a ♥ towards dummy's ♥ A T 9 8 7 6 . After thought you insert the queen and dummy wins with the ace.
Now declarer leads a ♥ from dummy and ruffs with ♠2.
You are about to follow suit, when your ♥ J 2 transmogrify into ♦ J 2
This kind of thing may never happen to you but for me it's a frequent occurrence
You over-ruff gratefully with the ♠3 and cash your ace of trumps (before partner has a chance to revoke).
Declarer complains to the director that, although he could have ruffed higher in complete safety, he felt there was no need to bother, after your hesitation.
Should the director judge that you had a demonstrable bridge-reason for your hesitation? (You certainly believed that you had one).
And how should the director rule?

ACBL case law states that "taking time determining which card will be the most deceptive" in a situation where thinking itself would be deceptive, is not a demonstrable bridge reason (the case IIRC was "which of the 7 or 5 is more likely to induce a defender's continuation, in a situation where declarer wants such continuation and if declarer had [cards], he would have to think of what to do").

Obviously, this is only ACBL case law, but it seems to make sense.

nige1, on 2013-April-12, 13:58, said:

I think that a BIT with a singleton, even if the player did not think it was a singleton, has to be punished.

mink, on 2013-April-12, 08:09, said:

The law is what it is. Discussion of what it should be belongs in the "changing laws" forum, not here.