[Cascade]

 gombo121, on 2011-September-20, 05:29, said:

I'd like to ask "says who?", but really that is NOT the point. The point is that declarer may legitimately complain about an attempt to deceive and defender should be penalized if this would be proven. But declarer is not supposed to base his action solely on opponent's tells, and therefore he should not get a free ride doing that.

You concentrate solely on East's alleged infraction, but what South did is (or did not) is equally or even more important for his score. If he plays along with probabiliteis (as bridge is supposed to be played, I believe), he will never be deceived this way.

BTW, how does South know that East pulls the same card from his hand second time? Was he watching closely? Then he was breaching 74C5, wasn't he? Should PP be applied to him?

East admitted he played the same card.

Just to be clear when i wrote you 'can't just claim ...' I meant the claim needs to be able to be accompanied by a demonstrable reason.

So if there is no demonstrable reason then your claim that you were thinking of something else is not sufficient.

[olegru]

 gombo121, on 2011-September-20, 05:29, said:

.. But declarer is not supposed to base his action solely on opponent's tells, and therefore he should not get a free ride doing that...

You concentrate solely on East's alleged infraction, but what South did is (or did not) is equally or even more important for his score. If he plays along with probabiliteis (as bridge is supposed to be played, I believe), he will never be deceived this way.

Gombo, look at bidding.
Declarer did play according the probabiliteis. East open 8 points hand and after West lead Ace of spade was strong favourite to have ♥Q.

[mich-b]

Considering the position in the ♥ suit and the bidding it is obvious that East was not "thinking" , was not "changing his mind", and was not trying to deceive. Since with x or Qx , he doesn't have any choice but to follow with the x.
Actually this should have been obvious to South as well. What did he think was going on? What did he think East's "fingering" implies? that he started with Qxx? Really? If he intended to play for the drop why did he change his mind?
I think it is obvious that East's fingering had no relevance to his holding in the suit, and if South thought otherwise he was either simply wrong (best case) or trying for a double shot (either the finesse works or I will get an adjustment). I have no sympathy for him.

[gombo121]

 Cascade, on 2011-September-20, 05:36, said:

East admitted he played the same card.

Wait, now I'm lost.

You basically say that all South saw was that East take out a card, put it back, and then take out a card again, possibly a different one. For all he knows, East may just escaped making a revoke; what kind of inference he can possibly made from that and what he is complaining about?!

Suppose East said that the first time he took out a card of another suit; would you also rule against him? Personally, I would consider such a ruling outrageous (provided, of course, East is not known to make such slips each evening). The actual explanation by East did sound a bit suspicious, since you don't usually need put card back in hand to check if it is one or two, but it may well be sincere.

I'd say East should get a lecture about his action being suspicious and that it is illegal to try to deceive declarer this way, South get a lecture on he should not pay close attention on behavior of opps and certainly should not expect to be compensated if his conslusions went wrong, result stands.

 olegru, on 2011-September-20, 07:11, said:

Gombo, look at bidding.
Declarer did play according the probabiliteis. East open 8 points hand and after West lead Ace of spade was strong favourite to have ♥Q.

Fine. Really, good for him. What is he complaining about, again? That his coin does not come heads up when he need it? Tough luck.

If he'd like to make a case about misexplanation of 1♣ opening, or missing alert, or something else related to the bidding - that's completely different story. But I see no case for the Law 73, especially if East is a player of any ability - there was clearly no sense to cover J, so there was equally no sense in faking it.

[olegru]

 gombo121, on 2011-September-20, 11:01, said:

Fine. Really, good for him. What is he complaining about, again?

Declarer had a choice. He could play according the probabilities or against the odds.
Let say he had 25% to get it right simply follow the rule 9 never. Mannerism by East robbed him of this 25%.

If regulation allows weighted adjustment equality can be restored relatively easy. We can discuss actual percentage but adjustment is due.
It looks harder in ACBL land, but I still do not think we can allow East to get out with stolen 25% of probabilities even if he got them by accident.
As for adjustment for NS I would make a poll to see if 6h made is in “all probable” category.

[gombo121]

 olegru, on 2011-September-20, 12:22, said:

Declarer had a choice. He could play according the probabilities or against the odds.
Let say he had 25% to get it right simply follow the rule 9 never. Mannerism by East robbed him of this 25%.

Sorry, but once again: how exactly declarer have been "robbed"? After any mannerism of a defender declarer has the same choice as before plus additional option to take new extraneous information into account. To exercise this option or not is his deliberate choice and he should be held fully accountable for the consequences. No action by defender can limit declarers choice, no action can "rob" him of anything.

Actually, above arguments, though I firmly believe in them in general, are completely irrelevant for the particular case we discuss.

Here everything is much simpler and I'm surprised that this point (though mentioned by Cyberyeti and mrdct) was not really stressed before (and I'm sorry that I didn't pay much attention to the diagram myself).
Bidding have made clear that South had at least four hearts, so if East happened to hold queen-third he knew exactly that his partner has no more cards in the suit and he would never dream about covering jack. Not only that, but South perfectly well knew that East knew that. So South's pretense that he was deceived into thinking that East have been holding queen and hesitated about to cover or not are simply ludicrous and it is just a crude attempt at double-shot, which collected surprisingly lot of sympathy (and if East is really so inexpirienced that he may actualy consider covering jack, the whole business becomes indecent in my opinion).

[blackshoe]

The question is whether there has been an infraction of law. If there has, and the NOS were damaged, they're due adjustment.

It appears Gombo is arguing there cannot have been damage from an infraction, either because there was no infraction, or because although there was, it didn't cause the damage.

[ggwhiz]

 Cascade, on 2011-September-20, 05:36, said:

East admitted he played the same card.

After hesitating and with no other option.

Do the laws not read along the lines of MAY have been done to deceive?

I don't question the ethics of east at all (seems to be very forthright as to the facts) and if I remember right on the above, he's completely off the hook ethics wise and should be.

Still, sloppy play that deserves a slap with a wet noodle.

[blackshoe]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-20, 15:43, said:

Do the laws not read along the lines of MAY have been done to deceive?

No, they don't.

[Cascade]

 ggwhiz, on 2011-September-20, 15:43, said:

Do the laws not read along the lines of MAY have been done to deceive?

"When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage
to an innocent opponent,..."

The relevant law here is the one concerning tempo. There was a violation of the law regarding tempo.

"... if the Director determines that an innocent player
has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent ..."

It is not relevant that there was an intent to deceive only that the opponent was deceived or in fact I think a lesser standard of drawing a false inference.

"... 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, ..."

There needs to be no bridge reason for the tempo etc issue. To me this means if I think you were thinking about "A" and make an assumption based on that but it turns out you were thinking about "B" which was to you a legitimate 'bridge reason' then that is my problem not yours.

I am inclined to believe that claiming two cards were stuck together (or I had the card from the wrong suit) is not a bridge reason. Otherwise a guilty opponent could always make such a claim. While I am not one for saying things like 'thinking about the whole hand' I have on occasion said "sorry pulled the wrong card" in similar situations.

There is also a condition that the player "could have known". In this case the player 'could have known' that by removing a card and returning it to his hand and then playing a card that he might deceive declarer into thinking he had a choice of plays and that it might work to his benefit. I think in the current situation that his 'could have known' is heightened when the player has already made a deceptive opening bid although some others here have disagreed with that.

"... the Director shall award an adjusted score"

If these conditions are met the director needs to award an adjusted score.

The wording here is interesting and strong.

Declarer drew a false inference - East had an alternative card to play

There was no bridge reason - if you accept that "i thought two cards were stuck together" is not a bridge reason

Could have known that it would work to his advantage - this seems obvious in this case

Now the director shall adjust the score.

I am not sure the wording is correct here. "Drawing a false inference" is not the same as "damaged". As written it appears to me (and I had not considered this until now) that declarer does indeed have a free shot following this sort of fumble.

A declarer who was inclined to finesse anyway but draws the 'false inference' that RHO has another card and the director is instructed by law to adjust.

[gombo121]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-20, 14:44, said:

The question is whether there has been an infraction of law. If there has, and the NOS were damaged, they're due adjustment.

It appears Gombo is arguing there cannot have been damage from an infraction, either because there was no infraction, or because although there was, it didn't cause the damage.

Thank you for translating my grumbling into a short coherent message.

Indeed, I my point basically is that in any 73F situation there can be no damage to innocent side but self-inflicted one (because of 73D).

Even you don't buy this argument in general, in this particular case it is impossible to produce a logical link between the alleged infraction and supposed damage.

[gombo121]

 Cascade, on 2011-September-20, 17:01, said:

Declarer drew a false inference - East had an alternative card to play

The inference is not false, it is completely misguided. East evidently has 13 cards to put on table, but whether he has an alternative legal card to play is unknown - he does not even pause for thought.

 Cascade, on 2011-September-20, 17:01, said:

Could have known that it would work to his advantage - this seems obvious in this case

Obviously not. It is crystal clear that it can never be to his advantage to play queen in this position, therefore nobody can knew in advance that hesitation (either true or fake) can influence declarer or how the declarer would read it.
This is NOT a two-way finess case.

 Cascade, on 2011-September-20, 17:01, said:

Now the director shall adjust the score.

Yes, he shall (provided he rejected my arguments above), but a split score is an adjusted score, according to Law 12. Why don't director exercise this option?

 Cascade, on 2011-September-20, 17:01, said:

A declarer who was inclined to finesse anyway but draws the 'false inference' that RHO has another card and the director is instructed by law to adjust.

Should not alleged 'false inference' be at least somewhat plausible? Law does not require that explicitly, but this is obvious, isn't it?

And one more - you repeatedly state it is a tempo problem; certainly, it is not - it is a case of (possibly inapropriate) mannerism. This does not change much in the discussion, but it is not the same thing either.



I'm sorry writing so much in this thread but it does touch my sore point. I'll stop here, since I think I put out all my arguments at least twice. Thank you for discussion.

[Cascade]

 gombo121, on 2011-September-21, 05:05, said:

The inference is not false, it is completely misguided. East evidently has 13 cards to put on table, but whether he has an alternative legal card to play is unknown - he does not even pause for thought.


Obviously not. It is crystal clear that it can never be to his advantage to play queen in this position, therefore nobody can knew in advance that hesitation (either true or fake) can influence declarer or how the declarer would read it.
This is NOT a two-way finess case.



Yes, he shall (provided he rejected my arguments above), but a split score is an adjusted score, according to Law 12. Why don't director exercise this option?



Should not alleged 'false inference' be at least somewhat plausible? Law does not require that explicitly, but this is obvious, isn't it?

And one more - you repeatedly state it is a tempo problem; certainly, it is not - it is a case of (possibly inapropriate) mannerism. This does not change much in the discussion, but it is not the same thing either.



I'm sorry writing so much in this thread but it does touch my sore point. I'll stop here, since I think I put out all my arguments at least twice. Thank you for discussion.

Your way of playing to me seems to encourage coffeehousing. I don't think detaching cards, replacing them in your hand, pulling them out again; playing in unusual tempo (even you write hesitation) etc are legitimate parts of the game. They are extraneous mannerisms that may deflect your opponent from your actual holding.

If you pull a card out and don't play it immediately or for any other reason do not play a card immediately when you have only one card left in the suit then it must be a reasonable inference that you have an alternative play on that trick. At least it can't be a completely misguided inference as you claim. By immediately I mean in your normal tempo.

Yes there are some players who are bad enough that they would cover an honour in this and similar situations.

Some years ago in reasonably quick session against two different international players I got covers in no gain situations. The first with QJxxxx opposite stiff A needing just one more trick for my contract and with only one more entry to the dummy I play the queen from the dummy and set up the jack when my RHO covered. The second one I do not recall the details but in a dangerous situation where the hand was going to completely fall apart if I lost the lead so at MPs I was going to cash up for down one but led the honour from dummy intending to rise ace and take my tricks but got a cover and made an overtrick!

I don't see how it can be reasonable to allow these players to play their cards in varying manner and tempo with impunity.

We have a choice here of inferences to draw:

1. The player had a choice of one card to play

2. The player had a choice of two cards to play

Choice 2. is perhaps divided up into two subcategories

2a. The player had a choice of two cards but would never cover so really one choice

2b. The player had a choice of two cards but is bad enough to erroneously cover

In cases 1 and 2a I would never expect a tempo or mannerism break.

In case 2b there might be a tempo or mannerism break.

[AlexJonson]

There can be accidents and there can be players with poor mannerisms.

Doesn't mean that TDs have to switch off their brains on a given hand.

I'm not sure I'm convinced by gombo121, but the more that people say he has no argument, the more I feel sympathetic to his position.

[barmar]

It seems like this is a discussion we've had many times: is there a difference between having only one LEGAL card to play and having only one SENSIBLE card to play?

If you have a singleton, it should take absolutely no thought to follow suit with it. Is it really just as automatic to play 2nd hand low when declarer is finessing? So if the player hitches, it never distinguishes between the two cases, he must have been thinking about something else?

[bluejak]

 gombo121, on 2011-September-19, 12:48, said:

Why oh why we so easily dismiss "at his own risk" clause?

East fumbles - for whatever reasons. Can declarer deliberately ignore the fumble or can he not? Sure he can, but he deliberately chooses not to, he chooses to base his action on East's mannerism. Fine, rules allow for that, but on his own risk. Declarer decided to take his chances and failed - so what?

You have a harsh look on East's attitude? - I can see your point. So PP him, or adjust his score, or both. But declarer's score should not be adjusted in any way, next time he will try harder to get real information on card distribution from play, not from mannerism of his opps.

Split score could and I believe should be used in such situations.

Under which Law?



I am unaware that we dismiss the clause. Again and again it has been explained in forums that “at his own risk” refers to situations where opponents have not misled you in any way. That is very different from ignoring the clause.

For example, if a player fumbles when playing his card, if you decide he had a decision you do so at your own risk, and if you are wrong, too bad.

Compare this where there is a clear hesitation by the defender rather than a simple fumble. Now you have the right to assume he had a decision and may get an adjustment if he has none.

Another situation is where an opponent hesitates showing a decision, and you deduce what his decision was and act on it. So long as he has not misled you, and has a decision, then you will not get an adjustment if it turns out his decision was not the one you thought it was. So you use your interpretation of his apparent decision at your own risk.

[gombo121]

Sorry for being back but I think it is rude to leave direct questions unanswered. (OK, that's a lame excuse, I know. )

 bluejak, on 2011-September-22, 19:12, said:

Under which Law?

What exactly do you mean?

No damage but self-inflicted one for S under 73D (no, I don't buy "only have not been misled situations" approach - see below), infraction for E, if necessary, under 73F, adjustment and split score under 12B1, 12C1(a,b,f, and, possibly, c).

 bluejak, on 2011-September-22, 19:12, said:

I am unaware that we dismiss the clause. Again and again it has been explained in forums that “at his own risk” refers to situations where opponents have not misled you in any way. That is very different from ignoring the clause.

Please, define "not misled you in any way". It seems to me, that there are only two options: 1) the opponent' play was perfectly smooth or 2) declarer got it right. Otherwise, declarer did get a wrong conclusion from the mannerism, i.e "was misled", wasn't he? In neither case you'll see a complaint and, indeed, I'm yet to see an example of complaint against misleading hesitation in play, which have been rejected under 73D. Instead I've seen rulings under 73F against players who fumbled with a single card (of course), with two smalls and three smalls. So if you did not manage to play in tempo to the trick for whatever reason, you'd better have an honor, because the only honorable decision for you is to play or not to play it - and how can declarer fail now?! (I'm not sure that even honor will always help - what about a lead of a stiff from dummy toward KJххх in hand - would you apply 73D or 73F if LHO pauses with Qхх and declarer plays king?)

Yes, it would be nice if everybody always played in "steady tempo and unvarying manner". But it is unreasonable to expect that in practice and the Law 73D is a recognition of this fact. I can't see how you distinguish between mere "fumble" and "clear hesitation". Pauses in those cases are just several seconds, usually under 5s, - they are clearly noticeable, because smooth tempo for most players is 1-2s per card, but still very short to be caused by anything, like simple loss of concentration. I believe, there is no way to provide consistent distinction between them and rulings based on the difference are bound to be subjective and inconsistent, which obviously should be avoided if possible.

Also, applying Laws in the way you do (the way it is commonly agreed at the moment) creates very perverse incentive for players - if they notice any fumble or hesitation by an opponent, they don't need to try and get their choice right, instead they need to invent a way how this fumble can possibly mislead them, because that provides a free ride, even if their logical conclusions are completely unreasonable.

Both those drawbacks can be avoided if we refuse to compensate misled players - we remove incentive to complain and therefore get much less dubious cases to judge; at the same time we still have a stick to penalise clear cases of "coffehousing". It would certainly makes matters simpler and I firmly believe in simpler is better.

[Cascade]

The problem is we also need to seriously remove the incentive to break tempo deceptively.

This needs to be done both in terms of the advantage that might accrue to the tempo breaker and to the disadvantage that befalls the innocent opponent.

[bluejak]

 gombo121, on 2011-September-24, 07:06, said:

No damage but self-inflicted one for S under 73D (no, I don't buy "only have not been misled situations" approach - see below), infraction for E, if necessary, under 73F, adjustment and split score under 12B1, 12C1(a,b,f, and, possibly, c).

You have to provide a reason for splitting the score that accords with the Laws. If there is no damage then there cannot be a split score. If there is damage then both sides get redress, which is the same for both sides except in certain specified circumstances. None of the circumstances and relevant Laws apply here. Laws 12C1B, 12C1E, 82C would allow a split score but none seem relevant here.

 gombo121, on 2011-September-24, 07:06, said:

Please, define "not misled you in any way". It seems to me, that there are only two options: 1) the opponent' play was perfectly smooth or 2) declarer got it right. Otherwise, declarer did get a wrong conclusion from the mannerism, i.e "was misled", wasn't he? In neither case you'll see a complaint and, indeed, I'm yet to see an example of complaint against misleading hesitation in play, which have been rejected under 73D. Instead I've seen rulings under 73F against players who fumbled with a single card (of course), with two smalls and three smalls. So if you did not manage to play in tempo to the trick for whatever reason, you'd better have an honor, because the only honorable decision for you is to play or not to play it - and how can declarer fail now?! (I'm not sure that even honor will always help - what about a lead of a stiff from dummy toward KJххх in hand - would you apply 73D or 73F if LHO pauses with Qхх and declarer plays king?)

Yes, it would be nice if everybody always played in "steady tempo and unvarying manner". But it is unreasonable to expect that in practice and the Law 73D is a recognition of this fact. I can't see how you distinguish between mere "fumble" and "clear hesitation". Pauses in those cases are just several seconds, usually under 5s, - they are clearly noticeable, because smooth tempo for most players is 1-2s per card, but still very short to be caused by anything, like simple loss of concentration. I believe, there is no way to provide consistent distinction between them and rulings based on the difference are bound to be subjective and inconsistent, which obviously should be avoided if possible.

Also, applying Laws in the way you do (the way it is commonly agreed at the moment) creates very perverse incentive for players - if they notice any fumble or hesitation by an opponent, they don't need to try and get their choice right, instead they need to invent a way how this fumble can possibly mislead them, because that provides a free ride, even if their logical conclusions are completely unreasonable.

Both those drawbacks can be avoided if we refuse to compensate misled players - we remove incentive to complain and therefore get much less dubious cases to judge; at the same time we still have a stick to penalise clear cases of "coffehousing". It would certainly makes matters simpler and I firmly believe in simpler is better.

Having read this carefully I see no justification whatever for the suggestion that we dismiss the clause: what you say here seems irrelevant to the idea that we dismiss part of the Law.

[gombo121]

Sorry for taking such a long time to get back but I've been quite busy lately.

 bluejak, on 2011-September-24, 17:08, said:

Laws 12C1B, 12C1E, 82C would allow a split score but none seem relevant here.

I beg to differ. In my opinion the Law 12C1B is fully relevant. Quote:

Law 12C1B said:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the nonoffending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) legal butor by wild or gambling action subsequent to the irregularity it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted

Under the Law 73D any inference taken from opponent's mannerism constitutes exactly a gambling ("on his own risk") action, therefore no relief for innocent side.

 bluejak, on 2011-September-24, 17:08, said:

Having read this carefully I see no justification whatever for the suggestion that we dismiss the clause: what you say here seems irrelevant to the idea that we dismiss part of the Law.

Again, English is not my first language, but in my book a provision, which is never applied is de facto being dismissed.
You failed to provide a practical example, where 73D have been applied, you also failed to define where are limitaions on what counts as misleading action as opposed to any random hitch.