[nige1]

 paulg, on 2011-April-15, 11:28, said:

Do you know any game, sport or regulated activity that does not have fierce debate about the application of its rules? At least in bridge the cases that we discuss in these forums represent a insignificant percentage of the rulings that are made without concern on a daily basis.

There are at least four levels of dispute about rules

• About the their intentions (e.g. sanctions they impose: "Equity" or deterrence?)
• About their complexity and meaning. (Few -- if any -- understand Bridge rules).
• About how they should be applied to a given case. (Rules that result in Inconsistent rulings are a problem in any game).
• About the facts of the case. (I agree that this is unavoidable in any game).

[AlexJonson]

If we return to this case.

There will be very, very few situations where you can demonstrate that a declarer had nothing to think about and you were damaged - just think about it for a bit and you will undoubtedly understand what I mean.

Even the equals holdings referred to, as well as being rare, are dubious as a basis for an adjustmentment.

It's fine to say 'if declarer intends to deceive illegally' he has broken the laws. Gosh, what a controversial assertion that is (not).

[gordontd]

 gnasher, on 2011-April-15, 07:27, said:

Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se).

Are you referring to L73D? "Not always" <> "not".

[pran]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-15, 13:17, said:

If we return to this case.

There will be very, very few situations where you can demonstrate that a declarer had nothing to think about and you were damaged - just think about it for a bit and you will undoubtedly understand what I mean.

Even the equals holdings referred to, as well as being rare, are dubious as a basis for an adjustmentment.

It's fine to say 'if declarer intends to deceive illegally' he has broken the laws. Gosh, what a controversial assertion that is (not).

Although I cannot name any specific case I know that there has been cases where declarer was "convicted" of violating law 73D2.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2011-April-15, 13:28, said:

Are you referring to L73D? "Not always" <> "not".

Quite likely he is, and in that case he should be aware that the remainder of a law is at least as important as the first sentence.

[jallerton]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-15, 13:17, said:

If we return to this case.

There will be very, very few situations where you can demonstrate that a declarer had nothing to think about and you were damaged - just think about it for a bit and you will undoubtedly understand what I mean.

Even the equals holdings referred to, as well as being rare, are dubious as a basis for an adjustmentment.

It's fine to say 'if declarer intends to deceive illegally' he has broken the laws. Gosh, what a controversial assertion that is (not).

It is very common for declarer to be down to one card in the suit led at some stage in the play. If declarer breaks tempo in such a situation and a defenders draws the inference that declarer "must" have another card in that suit and is damaged by drawing that false inference, then this Law is clearly relevant.

[AlexJonson]

 jallerton, on 2011-April-15, 14:54, said:

It is very common for declarer to be down to one card in the suit led at some stage in the play. If declarer breaks tempo in such a situation and a defenders draws the inference that declarer "must" have another card in that suit and is damaged by drawing that false inference, then this Law is clearly relevant.

Yes, perhaps. Maybe he is surprised the player on lead had a card in the suit. Maybe he is thinking about ruffing/discarding on a further play of the suit - will there in fact be a further round. Of course I would always always play to a trick and think 'on my own time'. I don't notice that declarers invariably do that, and I wonder if they are actually required to do so by Law, rather than thinking, for valid Bridge reasons, when they choose.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2011-April-15, 07:30, said:

From Law 73A2: Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste.

Yes, that says that an undue hesitation is an irregularity. This is the definition of "undue" from the Oxford English Dictionary (the free online one):

OED said:

undue (adjective): unwarranted or inappropriate because excessive or disproportionate

So, if the break in tempo is warranted and of appropriate length, it's not an irregularity.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-April-15, 16:57

[gnasher]

 gordontd, on 2011-April-15, 13:28, said:

Are you referring to L73D? "Not always" <> "not".

It seems that I didn't make myself clear. When I said "Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se)", I meant that a break in tempo is not in itself an irregularity. Yes, of course some breaks in tempo are irregularities, but equally some are not. My objection is to Sven's apparent belief that any break in tempo is an irregularity.

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2011-April-15, 16:29, said:

It seems that I didn't make myself clear. When I said "Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se)", I meant that a break in tempo is not in itself an irregularity. Yes, of course some breaks in tempo are irregularities, but equally some are not. My objection is to Sven's apparent belief that any break in tempo is an irregularity.

I think Sven is right that L73A2 says a BIT is always an irregularity (but it is not always penalised as an infraction).

[pran]

 AlexJonson, on 2011-April-15, 15:07, said:

Yes, perhaps. Maybe he is surprised the player on lead had a card in the suit. Maybe he is thinking about ruffing/discarding on a further play of the suit - will there in fact be a further round. Of course I would always always play to a trick and think 'on my own time'. I don't notice that declarers invariably do that, and I wonder if they are actually required to do so by Law, rather than thinking, for valid Bridge reasons, when they choose.

It is a well established rule that "I was thinking of my future play" when hesitating with (for instance) a singleton is not a valid argument.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2011-April-15, 16:29, said:

It seems that I didn't make myself clear. When I said "Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se)", I meant that a break in tempo is not in itself an irregularity. Yes, of course some breaks in tempo are irregularities, but equally some are not. My objection is to Sven's apparent belief that any break in tempo is an irregularity.

A break in tempo is always an irregularity, but not neccessarily an infraction (or violation) of law.

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2011-April-16, 00:10, said:

A break in tempo is always an irregularity, but not neccessarily an infraction (or violation) of law.

If you're going to repeat your assertion, I'm going to repeat my question. Which law says so?

So far you have:
- Quoted Law73A2, which tells us that undue hesitation is an infraction, but most certainly does not say that any hesitation is an irregularity.
- Suggested the second, third and fourth sentences of 73D in some way support your case, without telling us why you think that.

[AlexJonson]

 pran, on 2011-April-16, 00:07, said:

It is a well established rule that "I was thinking of my future play" when hesitating with (for instance) a singleton is not a valid argument.

Difficult waters you enter in the case of declarer.

If I decide to run a long suit, and to think about my future discards before I need to, in order to increase the pressure on defenders, am I following text book advice, or varying tempo in a way I know may well lead to my benefit.

[pran]

 gnasher, on 2011-April-16, 01:24, said:

If you're going to repeat your assertion, I'm going to repeat my question. Which law says so?

So far you have:
- Quoted Law73A2, which tells us that undue hesitation is an infraction, but most certainly does not say that any hesitation is an irregularity.
- Suggested the second, third and fourth sentences of 73D in some way support your case, without telling us why you think that.

I assume you know the difference between irregularity and infraction?

[nige1]

 gnasher, on 2011-April-15, 07:27, said:

Which law says that a break in tempo is an irregularity? I can only find the one that says it isn't (per se).

The law is a bit woolly. This is my attempt to split hairs: Gnasher may mean:

TFLB, L73D2 said:

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 in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

IMO, normal tempo includes some hesitations:

• Mandatory (for example after RHO deploys a STOP card).
• Warranted (for instance, arguably, by declarer, at trick one)
• Excusabe (say, if an opponent spills a drink over the table). But...

IMO, a BIT is undue hesitation or haste in taking a bridge action. Sven pointed out that

TFLB, L73A2 said:

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

Hence a BIT is an irregularity. (But not necessarily a punishable infraction).
Q.E.D.

[pran]

An irregularity is (literally) anything that prevents the regular proceedings of an event. Irregularities include, but are not limited to infractions of law.

Specifically defined in the Bridge laws:

Quote

Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.

[nige1]

 pran, on 2011-April-16, 08:11, said:

An irregularity is anything that prevents the regular proceedings of an event. Irregularities include, but are not limited to infractions of law.

That's better -- accurate and succinct

[campboy]

We know what an irregularity is. The point is, there isn't any law which says that correct procedure involves bidding without hesitation in all circustances. There are some laws which say certain hesitations "should" be avoided, but in those cases the hesitation is an infraction, not merely an irregularity (from the introduction, "should" establishes that failure to do so is an infraction).

[gnasher]

 pran, on 2011-April-16, 04:49, said:

I assume you know the difference between irregularity and infraction?

Yes, I know the difference between an irregularity and an infraction. Are you going to answer my question?