[VixTD]

I was asked to give a ruling in a match between the third county teams-of-eight on Sunday.

Michaels

---

EW were playing Acol with a weak NT. 2♥ was Michaels, showing 5+5+ in spades and a minor.

West led ♣A and switched to a diamond, which was won in dummy with the queen. South led ♠9 from dummy and ran it after a perceived hesitation from East. He called the director when this lost to the queen.

I was not in the room at the time, and the player who answered the call was reluctant to hear too much about it because he hadn't played the board yet. I was asked if I would deal with it at the end of the set. South had gone one off in his contract.

NS claimed there had been a hesitation before playing ♠3 on the nine. East maintained that he had played in tempo, as he always tries to do, not slowly but neither with undue haste.

I don't know if I would have been better placed to decide whether or not there had been a break in tempo if I'd been on the spot immediately after the incident, but how would you deal with this? If you decide there had been a hesitation, do you think South has a right to a score adjustment?

[Cyberyeti]

With KJ109 on the table, S has the A (or just possibly W has it stiff) so E has nothing to think about whether he has the Q or not, so there is no inference to be drawn, no adjustment and I seriously doubt there was a hesitation.

[mcphee]

What a joke declarer makes. He blew a cold hand, misplayed it and now is seeking adjustmnt. He had the chance to dump the H loser and didn't. I would call this an appeal without merit. Did he really think the guy was going to cover the trump?

[ahydra]

mcphee, on 2015-February-10, 08:20, said:

What a joke declarer makes. He blew a cold hand, misplayed it and now is seeking adjustmnt. He had the chance to dump the H loser and didn't. I would call this an appeal without merit. Did he really think the guy was going to cover the trump?

Yes, I like how he's "clever" enough to lead the ♠9 rather than the ♠4 but not clever enough to get rid of the heart loser first.

It's not an appeal yet though, just a TD ruling...

ahydra

[Vampyr]

mcphee, on 2015-February-10, 08:20, said:

What a joke declarer makes. He blew a cold hand, misplayed it and now is seeking adjustmnt. He had the chance to dump the H loser and didn't. I would call this an appeal without merit. Did he really think the guy was going to cover the trump?

Have a heart, this is the county C team.

[dburn]

Declarer wouldn't play to discard the diamond before drawing trumps. Instead, he would plan to draw trumps in two rounds and then play diamonds.

If something happened on the first round of trumps to cause him to change this plan, and that something should not have happened, he may be entitled to an adjustment.

[Hanoi5]

If the hesitation in the play cannot be established then the result should stand but the Director will be wary of East for future opportunities. But if the Director ´knows` East, he could adjust.

[whereagles]

If there was an hesitation, it would be somewhat unethical.

But I wouldn't buy an hesitation from ♠Qxx... so damage is somewhat self-inflicted.

[barmar]

What kind of "hesitation" are we talking about? If East went into the tank with xx, that would be quite unethical; I'd adjust the board and maybe even give a PP. But I suspect we're just talking about a momentary hitch. Those can be difficult to control, especially for C teams (who are probably frequently confused about whether they should signal count). I would be reluctant to adjust, this seems like one of those "take inference at your own risk" situations.

[blackshoe]

Is it unethical for a player who isn't aware that hesitating with a weak doubleton in this situation would be wrong to do so? Is it unethical for a player who is not aware that he is "hesitating" to do so?

Calling someone "unethical" is in effect calling him a bad person. Do we really want to do that as directors? Or players, for that matter? Oh, I'll grant that if there's solid evidence of cheating, he's unethical, but in that case we're more concerned with a conduct hearing that a score adjustment or procedural penalty. Or at least we should be.

Note: I'm not saying let East off the hook here, and I'm not saying I wouldn't adjust the score. I might even award a PP if I thought he should know better. But I'm not going to call him "unethical" and I don't think anyone else should either.

[barmar]

I think that players are expected to know that hesitating when there's nothing to think about is wrong. It even has a name, "coffeehousing".

A small hitch doesn't count. But taking 10 seconds (a LONG time) to decide whether to play the 5 or 3 does.

[ahydra]

Once again I go to upvote a barmar post and find the upvote button missing.

As others have said, it depends on the nature of the hesitation. Even in the county C team I am still reluctant to believe that East "hesitated" long enough for declarer to think he could infer something from it; I'd rule result stands, unless someone with decent evidence can convince me otherwise.

ahydra

[Aardv]

The fact is that no one but a rank beginner hesitates here with Qxx (a lot of players play low more smoothly with Qxx than with xx).

Quote

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

Is that "innocent" in the sense of "simple-minded"?

[weejonnie]

Based on the narrative, I have sympathy with EW.

What did the original Director find out when he questioned the players?

If no BIT then no adjustment.
If a BIT then make adjustment. (Hesitating with two cards is not a demonstrable bridge reason according to the EBU). South's failure to dispose of the Heart loser is not SeWOG - could have been worried about 3rd round being ruffed, for instance. Of course he can avoid that by cashing AK spades and then playing 3 diamonds, even if the Queen doesn't fall.

If the original TD didn't do anything to ascertain the facts then I think you may have to rule it as Director's error. The original TD should have ascertained the facts and made a ruling. (Or called you back in to do it)

The new TD cannot really do anything else. IMHO.

I suppose technically you could fine NS as they didn't call the TD after East had 'paused' before playing (or get EW to agree to the facts before playing a card)

(Which is why I carry a notebook as well as a copy of the laws when called to a table. Get the facts agreed.)

[VixTD]

I cannot believe there was a long pause before playing the card, but it's entirely possible there was what you call a momentary "hitch". If I had got to the table immediately I would have asked East to repeat the action (perhaps I should have done this anyway), but I still think I would not have got any agreement about the tempo of the play.

I know South as an honest player, but I also know he's frequently on the lookout for any advantage he can get from the opponents' tempo. I imagine there was a slight fumble that could have been attributed to a failure to grasp the card cleanly, or a momentary lapse of attention. I think it's clear to all the players that East can have no reason to think about playing the queen with any holding, but the relevant law (as someone quoted above), says:

Quote

[L73F] When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score

It doesn't say that the false inference has to be a sensible one, and I determined that South had drawn a false inference, viz. that the player would have more to think about with Qx(x) than with xx(x). I suppose the offender could have known that hesitating with xx could work to his benefit, if he could guess that declarer might play him for a significant card. I just wasn't prepared to believe there was enough of a break in tempo to warrant such a conclusion, so I ruled that the score should stand.

It reminded me of an EBU appeal (appeal no.1) in which a player claimed to have been misled by a hesitation where the offender would have no reason to think. He lost the ruling and the appeal, and the commentators were mostly baying for the deposit to be withheld.

If there had been a clear, undisputed long pause I would not be happy in this situation to rule that the score stands. I would consider fining the offender under law 73D, and I would like to award a split score, but I'm not sure that would be legal.

[lamford]

I tend to believe East that he was trying to play at normal tempo. If he did take ten seconds, then he could have known that his BIT would deceive, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. If the South hand is xxxx Qxx AKxxx x, then he might well try the ruse of running the nine of spades at trick two; after all East would not cover with Qx would he? And with xxxxx Qxx AKxx x he might do this as well - just as good to play for stiff queen as stiff ace. Certainly a C team player might play this way, whether best or not. I am with dburn here. If we are sure something caused South to change his play, then adjust.

And we can tell something of the calibre of South from that hopeless 3S bid.

[barmar]

I think this all hinges on whether a small hitch is intended to be included in the "remark, manner, tempo, or the like" that L73F says the offender is supposed to know might work to his advantage. We're just humans, we can sometimes be taken by surprise (although declarer pulling trump at his first opportunity shouldn't be very surprising) or have momentary lapses, so slight hesitations are difficult to predict and control. And perhaps the experience level of the player should be taken into account; life novices have no consistent tempo, you can rarely take any accurate inferences from them, and it's not clear that they "could have known" how it would affect the results.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-February-12, 10:46, said:

I think this all hinges on whether a small hitch is intended to be included in the "remark, manner, tempo, or the like" that L73F says the offender is supposed to know might work to his advantage. We're just humans, we can sometimes be taken by surprise (although declarer pulling trump at his first opportunity shouldn't be very surprising) or have momentary lapses, so slight hesitations are difficult to predict and control. And perhaps the experience level of the player should be taken into account; life novices have no consistent tempo, you can rarely take any accurate inferences from them, and it's not clear that they "could have known" how it would affect the results.

Yep. Still, for many club and on-line players, a singleton is guaranteed.

[Aardv]

lamford, on 2015-February-12, 08:39, said:

I tend to believe East that he was trying to play at normal tempo. If he did take ten seconds, then he could have known that his BIT would deceive, but we have to give him the benefit of the doubt on this occasion. If the South hand is xxxx Qxx AKxxx x, then he might well try the ruse of running the nine of spades at trick two; after all East would not cover with Qx would he? And with xxxxx Qxx AKxx x he might do this as well - just as good to play for stiff queen as stiff ace. Certainly a C team player might play this way, whether best or not. I am with dburn here. If we are sure something caused South to change his play, then adjust.

It's just about possible to construct a reason to hesitate with Qx, but never with Qxx which is the holding declarer is playing for when he runs the 9.

In reality, some players looking at xx will take their time opening the fan and pulling out a card - not hesitating, but playing in a slow tempo. But no one in the County C team hesitates with Qxx, and South if asked would not be able to give any rational reason for playing a hesitator for that holding.

Suppose we establish (i) that a hesitation satisfying L73F occurred (ii) declarer changed his line because of it, and (iii) the change of line was irrational. Are we required to adjust?

[campboy]

Aardv, on 2015-February-13, 02:29, said:

Suppose we establish (i) that a hesitation satisfying L73F occurred (ii) declarer changed his line because of it, and (iii) the change of line was irrational. Are we required to adjust?

Well, it doesn't satisfy 73F unless East "could have known" -- if the change of line was truly irrational, how could he have foreseen it?