[blackshoe]

And that line of play depends on his partner taking a particular action. 70D2 applies.

[OleBerg]

One trick to EW.

And a stern look at South.

If the round has been called, and East has the time to say: "Come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs"., South is playing his cards to slow.

The tactic of doing this, hoping opponents will missdiscard under time-pressure, has been seen used.

And anyway, South can't have any problems that merits his not playing in a reasonable tempo.

(I've had a hard-disk crash, so I wont bother to look up which law that says you cannot play slow for no reason.)

[blackshoe]

OleBerg, on Jul 31 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

If the round has been called, and East has the time to say: "Come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs"., South is playing his cards to slow.

Quite possibly. Or maybe East is just impatient.

Quote

The tactic of doing this, hoping opponents will missdiscard under time-pressure, has been seen used.

That's not evidence that this South is using it in this case.

Quote

(I've had a hard-disk crash, so I wont bother to look up which law that says you cannot play slow for no reason.)

That's good, because there isn't one.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2010, 04:21 PM, said:

Quote

(I've had a hard-disk crash, so I wont bother to look up which law that says you cannot play slow for no reason.)

That's good, because there isn't one.

Isn't it "needlessly prolonging the play"?

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2010, 10:21 AM, said:

Quote

(I've had a hard-disk crash, so I wont bother to look up which law that says you cannot play slow for no reason.)

That's good, because there isn't one.

Try Law 90B2:

Quote

LAW 90 - PROCEDURAL PENALTIES
A. Director’s Authority
The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offence that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table.
B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty
The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these):
1. arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time.
2. unduly slow play by a contestant.

Or Law 74B4:

Quote

LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE
B. Etiquette
As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

[peachy]

[quote name='blackshoe' date='Jul 31 2010, 10:21 AM'] [quote name='OleBerg' date='Jul 31 2010, 10:13 AM']If the round has been called, and East has the time to say: "Come on we've got to hurry up, partner's going to keep clubs"., South is playing his cards to slow.[/quote]Quite possibly. Or maybe East is just impatient.
[quote]The tactic of doing this, hoping opponents will missdiscard under time-pressure, has been seen used.[/quote]That's not evidence that this South is using it in this case.
[quote](I've had a hard-disk crash, so I wont bother to look up which law that says you cannot play slow for no reason.)[/quote]That's good, because there isn't one. [/quote]
[/QUOTE]That's not evidence that this South is using it in this case.
[QUOTE]

It is not evidence of the opposite either, it is just not evidence of anything. But the TD has the right to judge whether the balance of probabilities speak in favor of this declarer using that tactic. I don't know, I don't know this player's habits, and I have no access to what his/her thoughts are, and not knowing, I would not assign that motive to the slowness.

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2010, 05:37 AM, said:

And that line of play depends on his partner taking a particular action. 70D2 applies.

Which is precisely why I said in my earlier post:

Quote

Because this claim by East depends on West finding a particular play when there are less successful alternatives (including careless and inferior plays) I believe we have to rule that West will pitch a ♣.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

[shyams]

A. Can we ask the OP for an assessment of the standard of all players?
1. Clearly East can count and knows what is going on.
2. Normally such players play with people of equal caliber (esp. if this is a regular partnership). If yes, I would give E/W one trick regardless of what happened.

B. Did the TD ask the table why they were delayed for the round?
3. IMHO, as part of the investigation, the TD should check if South (or N/S) were responsible for the time over-run in this round. If they have been almost fully responsible, I would hope the TD does not even give a PP to East for trying to speed up the play.
4. If there is no clear side responsible for the delay, the TD should warn or give a PP to East -- TD's judgement

C. Is there any "history" between these two pairs?
5. The idea of invoking the slow play penalty would be relevant only if the TD finds that South was trying to annoy E/W in any way or there is a history between these pairs.

[barmar]

I doubt there's any reason for a slow play penalty. This sounds like a situation where declarer is running his suit hoping that a squeeze will materialize; you need to keep track of the opponents' discards and think about your discards from dummy as you're doing this.

If West had shown his hand to declarer and told him that he wasn't discarding the club guard, there wouldn't be a problem. The only issue is whether East can claim on the assumption his partner will do the right thing. Although he may be confident that his partner knows what he's doing, I don't think so.

Often I'm tempted to make claims like this, because I assume that if declarer had the key card he would have claimed already. But sometimes declarers lose track as well, and play out when they don't really need to (especially novices). Even if I'm 99% sure of the end position, I don't think it's right to make a defensive claim like this. I know I've sometimes lost attention as a defender and pitched the setting card.

So unless declarer was playing extremely slowly to try to lull West to sleep (a Sominex coup), I disallow the claim.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

South, did you unduly delay the game?

Of course not!

Well he says he didn't, good enough for me.

[gwnn]

next time I'm playing with jdonn I'll stall for three minutes then accuse him of slow play

[OleBerg]

barmar, on Aug 1 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

This sounds like a situation where declarer is running his suit hoping that a squeeze will materialize; you need to keep track of the opponents' discards and think about your discards from dummy as you're doing this.

But it isn't.

South' discards from dummy are immaterial, and so is the discards from the opponents. There is nothing to the play, but drawing thrumphs, and then the ♣A and the last club.

If South is considering which discards from dummy are more likely to fool the opponents, he should have done so before running excess thrumphs. I will consider doing that now a violation of Law 73.D.1. You might even argue, that he should have done it at trick 1, but that would be much to harsh in my opinion. (Which, by the way, is never humble.)

If South admits (who would), that he paused to make the opponents belive a squeeze could be in progress, I would consider it a blatant violation of Law 73.D.2.

And yes, I know the the best deceptive discard from dummy may depend on what the opponents discard. But this is still the wrong place for such contemplations.


Edit: I've regretted what I wrote above. South must plan his deceptive discards before leading his last red card from the hand. After that, any cashing of winners should be in tempo.

[blackshoe]

Based on the little evidence I've seen in this thread, my guess is that South doesn't have a clue what's going on in this hand. He's just playing out his cards in the hopes that something good will happen. Or maybe he's not really thinking at all, just playing out his cards.

East is impatient, and has made an inappropriate comment (because he's suggesting to his partner how to play his cards).

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it?

[OleBerg]

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

Based on the little evidence I've seen in this thread, my guess is that South doesn't have a clue what's going on in this hand. He's just playing out his cards in the hopes that something good will happen. Or maybe he's not really thinking at all, just playing out his cards.

No matter how incompetent South is, then not playing the cards in tempo, at that point, is a violation.

Quote

East is impatient, and has made an inappropriate comment (because h's suggesting to his partner how to play his cards).

Or maybe he is trying to save everybody from a slow-play penalty, because he knows what will inevitably happen.

Quote

So sure, let's put all the blame on South, hammer him with a slow play penalty, and a violation of the proprieties, and a general penalty for not being the best player in the room. And maybe we can think of some more reasons to penalize him. After all, it's all his fault, isn't it?    

I only suggested a stern look. If South is truly incompetent, a lighthearted, easy to understand explanation will be used instead.

But like others have suggested, you really have to know the players involved, and be at the table asking the right questions, to be able to make a fair ruling.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Jul 31 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

peachy, on Jul 31 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

South has, nevertheless, contributed to the problem with undue slowness and no effort to catch up when round is already called.

Has he? Frankly, I want to hear it from him, and we haven't.

And what will he say? hehe...
There is no way of knowing, whatever he will say. If he is honest, he was not trying that ploy in the first place. If he is not honest, he won't be admitting it.
I am not in any way fond of or approving of East's comment. It deserves whatever the TD decides. But maybe being at the table and knowing South's capabilities could help determine what happened. He could easily be clueless and flustered and not aware that round was called. We just don't know.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Aug 1 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

We just don't know.

No, we don't. Everybody is making assumptions, and there's a good chance those assumptions - whether or not in favor of South - are wrong. Which means the suggested rulings based on those assumptions are also probably wrong.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Jul 30 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

A defender can't claim for his partner.

What Law says that?

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

peachy, on Aug 1 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

We just don't know.

No, we don't. Everybody is making assumptions, and there's a good chance those assumptions - whether or not in favor of South - are wrong. Which means the suggested rulings based on those assumptions are also probably wrong.

The TD has the authority to rule even when there is no hard evidence or the facts are unclear or in dispute. The TD can assign something the status of "fact" by using his judgment and basing such judgment on the "preponderance of evidence" or, "more likely than not", and rule _as if_ it was a fact. So a ruling based on TD's reasoned judgment [which you may call "assumption" but I would not] is not wrong.

[blackshoe]

Not quite. Law 85 tells the TD that when the facts are not agreed upon by the players, he shall base a determination of fact on the preponderance of the evidence, but that if he is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he is to make a ruling "that will allow play to continue". There is also Law 83, which suggests that in a law 85 case, the TD should be particularly careful to remind players of their right to appeal.

It is the habit of TDs, at least here in the ACBL, to give rulings without stating what laws are germane. It seems to be the habit here, too. I think it's a bad habit, particularly here where we are supposed to be discussing the mechanics of ruling as much as what the ruling ought to be in a particular case.