[Cyberyeti]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-November-23, 10:04, said:

I think it's fair to say that he would probably not be playing in this event unless he was a better player than should be thinking about bidding 3♣.

blackshoe, on 2010-November-23, 15:14, said:

How is this relevant?

It's relevant in that anybody playing in that event should know enough about what's going on that:

a) they should realise the hesitation could work to their advantage
b) they should be a good enough player that "thinking of bidding 3♣" is unlikely to be a valid bridge reason. This is I suspect something bad players are more likely to think about.

[Free]

Cyberyeti has a point that, for example, in the Bermuda Bowl final this wouldn't be a valid reason to think. I just don't know how prestigous this Tollemache qual is, so I can hardly judge. But where do you draw the line?

[gnasher]

In my experience, when the partner of a 1NT opener thinks and then passes, it's at least as likely that he's thinking of finding a suit partscore than that he's thinking of inviting. Most players already know what their policy is about manky 11-counts or nice 10-counts, but with a 6-card minor or with 4-4 in the majors there is more to consider.

I'm not sure if that's relevant, though: this West thought the hesitation suggested strength, so this West was misled and I suppose that this West is entitled to redress.

[gnasher]

axman, on 2010-November-23, 10:29, said:

Consider that wishy-washy west merely "might well have bid 2D". A person that might do such and such conversely might not; as such, the person doesn't know what he would have done differently and thus the inference was not material.

So because West decided to be honest about his uncertainty we deny him any redress? If he would have bid 60% of the time, he is entitled to 60% of the score for bidding.

[VixTD]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-23, 08:01, said:

Doesn't this belong in the "Simple Rulings" forum?

My understanding is that the "Simple rulings" forum is not so much for simple rulings, but for rulings which do not require application of bridge judgement. This one seems to require plenty.

campboy, on 2010-November-23, 08:59, said:

The only reason I might not adjust is that I think it is difficult for E/W to stay out of 4♥ after Asptro. Of course I would ask them what their follow-ups are to try to figure this out. South has no demonstrable bridge reason for thinking here.

East said he would make a game try which asks for West's other suit. Surely West will be able to sign off in 3♥ now.

gnasher, on 2010-November-24, 06:50, said:

So because West decided to be honest about his uncertainty we deny him any redress? If he would have bid 60% of the time, he is entitled to 60% of the score for bidding.

I agreed that South has no demonstrable bridge reason for thinking here. I might well have ruled differently in the case of a beginner, but as has been said many times, these are not beginners. West drew a false inference from this, and so is entitled to redress under laws 73F and 12C. I polled a number of players on what they would do with the West hand after 1NT - P - P, and got a roughly equal split for passing and bidding 2♦, so I adjusted the score to 40% of 1NT(N)-1 and 60% of 3♥(W)=.

I didn't think any of this was particularly simple, and there was certainly some support for the opinion that South did have a legitimate reason for thinking. I pointed out to EW that if South had had a sixth club, or if his 5-card suit had been a major, he would presumably have had something to think about, and West would have been in much the same position. They agreed that in that case there would have been no reason to adjust the score.

[axman]

gnasher, on 2010-November-24, 06:50, said:

So because West decided to be honest about his uncertainty we deny him any redress? If he would have bid 60% of the time, he is entitled to 60% of the score for bidding.

Spoken as though west is entitled to something without regard to his earning it. That is a fascinating morality.

I was pointing out that west has said in effect that he had not been deceived.

Matters of propriety are not simple.

[mfa1010]

Adjustment is appropriate in a event with decent players.

[gnasher]

axman, on 2010-November-24, 14:58, said:

Spoken as though west is entitled to something without regard to his earning it. That is a fascinating morality.

I was pointing out that west has said in effect that he had not been deceived.

Matters of propriety are not simple.

How on earth do you get from "I might well have bid 2♦ if South had passed in tempo" to "I was not deceived"?

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on 2010-November-23, 14:06, said:

I believe there have been rulings before concerning a slow pass by the partner of the 1NT opener where this player holds tram tickets and the Laws and Ethics committee advice has been that this is not an acceptable position to think and adjustment should be considered if one is persuaded some damage has been done.

If the L&EC has come to a judgement on what constitutes a "demonstrable bridge reason" in this sequennce, then it is a shame that their decision is not recorded in the EBU White Book. The White Book gives some useful guidance about hesitations during the play, but there is nothing about hesitations during the bidding.

Many posters have suggested that there is no "demonstrable bridge reason" to think with the actual hand (a weak 3235 shape). If they are right, is there a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think with:

(a) A 2533 3-count?
(b] A 2236 3-count?
(c] A 4432 3-count (considering using Stayman and passing the response)?
(d) A 4333 3-count (considering using Stayman and passing the response)?
(e) A balanced good 10-count/bad 11-count (considering a light raise to 2NT)?

[dburn]

Some tentative thoughts on the principles involved, having recently given a couple of "simple rulings" about which the players concerned are still doing vast amounts of ear-bashing.

The relevant passages from the Laws are:

Quote

73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. 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.

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

73F. Violation of Proprieties

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 (see Law 12C).

Now, the important words in Law 73F are the first clause: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent... These are often ignored by those who believe that just because a player who appeared to think had no apparent reason for thinking, that in itself is sufficient reason to adjust. For redress to be due, there must have been a violation of Law (or Propriety, which is the same thing nowadays), and thinking is not a violation of Law. If this South thought he had something to think about, then whether or not (in the opinion of better players) he should have been thinking about it at all, he has not violated 73D2 - that is, he has not "attempted to mislead" by pretending to think.

Nevertheless, he has (or may have) violated 73D1 by not being "particularly careful" when his variation in tempo might work to the benefit of his side (as it appears to have done in this case). That is the reason it is still appropriate to use Law 73F in favour of East-West - as Jeremy correctly remarks, thinking on tram tickets after 1NT-pass-pass is an old dodge of which no self-respecting player nowadays should even be suspected.

But it is not always the case that Law 73F can be used when there has been no attempt to mislead and no dereliction of the duty of "particular care". I summarize the two "ear-bashing" cases briefly below, in order to exemplify my way of thinking with an acknowledgement that I might have been wrong in either case or both.

Case 1: a player was defending 6NT after a relay auction in which declarer had shown a 5=3=3=2 shape. At a critical point, he asked dummy to confirm that declarer really had shown 5=3=3=2. "Yes", said dummy. Dissatisfied still, the defender asked declarer to confirm that he really had shown 5=3=3=2. "Yes", said declarer, and added jocularly something to the effect that "...but you know what these systems are". Concluding from this that declarer was instead 4=4=3=2, the defender discarded the wrong thing and let the slam make because declarer really was (gasp) 5=3=3=2.

My opinion was that although declarer's remark was (to say the least) inappropriate, it was not an attempt to mislead, nor did it fall foul of the need to take "particular care". There was no demonstrable bridge reason for making the remark, though, so had it not been for the opening words of Law 73F I would have adjusted the score anyway. But those words are there, and they are there for a reason.

Case 2: declarer in two diamonds doubled had a trump suit of K7432 facing 1065. He led an early round from his hand - two, jack, five, eight. Later he led the six from dummy and caught a very slow nine to his right. He thought about it for a long while, then lost the king to the (now singleton) ace on his left and was down one instead of making.

The bidding had marked RHO with next to nothing, and there was no doubt that had the ♦9 been played in anything like normal tempo, declarer would have ducked - he almost ducked anyway, because he knows about the "own risk" provision of Law 73D1. But there was also no doubt that the chap who played the nine slowly was just wool-gathering - there was absolutely no "attempt to mislead", and no violation of Law 73D2. (You may say that this implies a trust in the chap's character that might not be warranted, but you will have to take my word for it that the chap is as honest as they come). Here, though, there was a violation of Law 73D1 - the chap had failed to be "particularly careful" when he should have been.

These are deep waters, and as has been made clear by the replies so far, nothing very much actually belongs in "Simple Rulings" at all.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2010-November-24, 06:49, said:

In my experience, when the partner of a 1NT opener thinks and then passes, it's at least as likely that he's thinking of finding a suit partscore than that he's thinking of inviting. Most players already know what their policy is about manky 11-counts or nice 10-counts, but with a 6-card minor or with 4-4 in the majors there is more to consider.

I'm not sure if that's relevant, though: this West thought the hesitation suggested strength, so this West was misled and I suppose that this West is entitled to redress.

How does the TD determine whether or not West's actual reasoning was as follows?

"I am not sure why South hesitated. Without the hesitation it might be a bit dangerous to bid here, but the hesitation gives me a great 2-way shot. I'll pass. If South has a near raise to 2NT, I'll avoid -200 or worse; if South was deciding on which part-score to play when in theory it was right for me to bid, I'll call the TD and ask for an adjustment."

[VixTD]

dburn, on 2010-November-24, 16:53, said:

Nevertheless, he has (or may have) violated 73D1 by not being "particularly careful" when his variation in tempo might work to the benefit of his side (as it appears to have done in this case).

Indeed, without that requirement to be particularly careful to avoid tempo variations in law 73D1 I think my ruling would have been unsound.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2010-November-24, 17:12, said:

How does the TD determine whether or not West's actual reasoning was as follows?

"I am not sure why South hesitated. Without the hesitation it might be a bit dangerous to bid here, but the hesitation gives me a great 2-way shot. I'll pass. If South has a near raise to 2NT, I'll avoid -200 or worse; if South was deciding on which part-score to play when in theory it was right for me to bid, I'll call the TD and ask for an adjustment."

I'm not sure that he has to (although it might be a good idea if he did have to). If we accept that South should have been more careful to maintain an even tempo, and could have known that failure to do so might benefit his side, then all we need to do is judge whether or not West has drawn a false inference from the break in tempo. Surely both "South was thinking - he must have values" and "South was thinking - he may or may not have values" are false inferences. The law does not say that they have to be good inferences, or particularly strong inferences.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2010-November-24, 17:12, said:

How does the TD determine whether or not West's actual reasoning was as follows?

"I am not sure why South hesitated. Without the hesitation it might be a bit dangerous to bid here, but the hesitation gives me a great 2-way shot. I'll pass. If South has a near raise to 2NT, I'll avoid -200 or worse; if South was deciding on which part-score to play when in theory it was right for me to bid, I'll call the TD and ask for an adjustment."

That strategy won't usually work. If South was thinking about which partscore to play and actually had something to think about, the TD shouldn't adjust the score.

[Phil]

jallerton, on 2010-November-24, 17:12, said:

How does the TD determine whether or not West's actual reasoning was as follows?

"I am not sure why South hesitated. Without the hesitation it might be a bit dangerous to bid here, but the hesitation gives me a great 2-way shot. I'll pass. If South has a near raise to 2NT, I'll avoid -200 or worse; if South was deciding on which part-score to play when in theory it was right for me to bid, I'll call the TD and ask for an adjustment."

"Who knows what darkness lies in the hearts of men"?

As you say, West has a hand that does not have a clear balancing action. If it were stronger, then I think West is taking a double-shot, accordingly I would take West's statement at face value.

Imagine if South actually has the good 10 count or a hand that wanted to scramble out to a major. Both are made possible by the tank and balancing is substantially less attractive.