[qwery_hi]

This so called problem is easily solved by allowing allowing players to hesitate whenever and for whatever reason they want, as long as it doesn't convey information to one's partner by prior agreement.

Then declarer would by necessity learn to ignore tells, and if he chooses to act on tells, he does so knowing all the risks involved.

The current rules are absolute nonsense. The safest legal way to follow them would be to take 60s for *all* actions, including passing as opener on a 0 count and following suit with a singleton.

Do defenders get any adjustment in this situation? Declarer leads up to KJx in dummy, and once LHO has played low, will go into a tank for a minute before calling for a card. If he then guesses right, all the commentators and bridge world will be all praises for his "table sense".

Cascade, on 2011-September-24, 13:15, said:

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-October-04, 04:10, said:

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.

Unfortunately you do not write the Laws, and this is not the normal interpretation. An action at your own risk is not necessarily gambling. Furthermore, it is only "at your own risk" if you have misread a reasonable action: opponents are not, as a matter of law, allowed to mislead you with mannerisms when they could have known they would mislead.

gombo121, on 2011-October-04, 04:10, said:

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.

I am sorry, I failed to realise you had given me homework to do.

There are lots of occasions where this Law is followed and lots of occasions where there are adjustments when it is not.

[gombo121]

bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 09:13, said:

I am sorry, I failed to realise you had given me homework to do.

There are lots of occasions where this Law is followed and lots of occasions where there are adjustments when it is not.

I do not consider it a reasonable discussion where one side neither substantiates its claims nor responds to arguments of the other.

Yes, I'm perfectly aware that my view is a minority, but what you call "normal" interpretation is, frankly, pure nonsense, which cannot be applied in any consistent non self-contradictory way. If "at you own risk" is not a gambling, than I don't know how you define either.

I get, you don't care providing examples of 73D in action, may be somebody else would volunteer?

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 09:13, said:

I am sorry, I failed to realise you had given me homework to do.

There are lots of occasions where this Law is followed and lots of occasions where there are adjustments when it is not.

But David, he is trying to learn. Isn't that why you are here?

[aguahombre]

gombo121, on 2011-October-04, 10:04, said:

I get, you don't care providing examples of 73D in action, may be somebody else would volunteer?

May I try, from just having read the laws --not from an official standpoint?

Other sections, when combined, indicate that taking a view based on tempo or verbage (extraneous stuff) is at the player's own risk; also that if the player who provides the extraneous stuff could have known it might damage the opponents an adverse ruling might follow.

73D refers to doing it on purpose with intent to deceive. A whole different thing.

BTW, the word "risk" does not always refer to gambling. It can also mean peril.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-October-04, 10:30

[barmar]

gombo121, on 2011-October-04, 10:04, said:

If "at you own risk" is not a gambling, than I don't know how you define either.

In bridge, "gambling" is usually interpreted as taking a pretty large risk, as in Gambling 3NT. Bidding game with only 24 combined HCP is also risky, but no one would call it gambling, just slightly aggressive.