[matmat]

I heard pepto-bismol was good for irregularities.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2011-April-16, 08:17, said:

pran, on 2011-April-16, 08:11, said:

An irregularity is (literally) 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

I can't imagine why you think that. The term "irregularity" is defined (quite succinctly) in the Laws. In fact, Sven quoted the legal definition - "a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player". Sven's own definion of "anything that prevents the regular proceedings of an event" is both wordier and different in meaning.

Regarding "correct procedure", the Introduction to the Laws begins "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure". The implication is that if something is not stated in the Laws, it does not form part of the "correct procedure".

Quote

IMO, a BIT is undue hesitation or haste in taking a bridge action.
...
Hence a BIT is an irregularity.

If I were to say "IMO a banana is undue hesitation", would you then accept that a banana is an iregularity?

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-April-16, 15:07, said:

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

I have already done, but just to repeat:

Quote

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.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-April-16, 15:26, said:

I can't imagine why you think that. The term "irregularity" is defined (quite succinctly) in the Laws. In fact, Sven quoted the legal definition - "a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player". Sven's own definion of "anything that prevents the regular proceedings of an event" is both wordier and different in meaning.

And I explicitly stated this as the literal meaning of irregularity, then I quoted the definition in the bridge laws.

gnasher, on 2011-April-16, 15:26, said:

Regarding "correct procedure", the Introduction to the Laws begins "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure". The implication is that if something is not stated in the Laws, it does not form part of the "correct procedure".

If I were to say "IMO a banana is undue hesitation", would you then accept that a banana is an iregularity?

As far as I know a banana is a real thing (a fruit) while "hesitation" is an abstract. Maybe you can equate a banana with "hesitation", I cannot.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-April-16, 07:16, said:

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

gnasher, on 2011-April-16, 15:26, said:

If I were to say "IMO a banana is undue hesitation", would you then accept that a banana is an iregularity?

I found no official definition of a BIT so I explained my guess as to how relevant laws should be interpreted buI I respect gnasher's opinion.
.

[barmar]

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.

They're required to do so when the hesitation could cause an opponent to draw an incorrect inference.

If the opponents should have a count of the suit, the hesitation can't mislead them, so hesitating with a singleton isn't ALWAYS a problem. But most of the time it is.

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-April-16, 15:50, said:

I have already done, but just to repeat:

No, you haven't. You've stated that an irregularity is any deviation from correct procedure (with which definition we are, of course, familiar), but you haven't given any reason why a hesitation is a deviation from correct procedure. The correct procedure is laid out in law 17B-C; it does not say anything about how quickly the calls are made. Undue hesitancy is an infraction, not merely an irregularity (73A2), but unless, as Nige1 seems to, you think that all hesitations are undue, why are hesitations other than those covered by 73A2 or 73D1 irregularities?

[nige1]

campboy, on 2011-April-17, 07:08, said:

Undue hesitancy is an infraction, not merely an irregularity (73A2), but unless, as Nige1 seems to, you think that all hesitations are undue, why are hesitations other than those covered by 73A2 or 73D1 irregularities?

• The discussion was about BITS..
• I don't think all hestiations are BITs
• I made clear my view that not all hesitations are undue

[campboy]

Apologies Nige1, I didn't read what you wrote carefully enough.

[bluejak]

Hanoi5, on 2011-April-13, 20:39, said:

Excellent, so how do you act as a Director in front of these situations? Not long ago a player was in a slam and led towards KJ at the table (he had to guess right to make 6) and LHO thought for a bit before playing small. Declarer played the King RHO won the Ace and LHO later won the Queen. I wasn't called for this, I just overheard it, but LHO is a mere beginner, so she didn't know what she was doing; how do you rule in such a situation when the player is a beginner? What about when he isn't? What about the player claiming s/he was thinking about something else?

Beginners are not assumed to "could have known" and declarer would not get a ruling in this case.

blackshoe, on 2011-April-15, 04:29, said:

So, the burden of proof is on the accused? Where in the law is that?

pran, on 2011-April-15, 05:31, said:

Law 73F.

A player is no longer just "accused" when facts of an irregularity (e.g. BIT) has been established.

My Law book does not contain anything about a player having to prove anything and it certainly says nothing like that in 73F.

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).

Law 73D1 [second sentence] is the Law that may be infracted.



When I wrote the above I failed to realise that there was an irrelevant argument going on. Please ignore my assertion for that argument. It matters not whether something is an irregularity or not if it is not an infraction. I am only interested in infractions as far as this thread is concerned.