[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-September-21, 10:09, said:

It could be either. I don't know how you can tell.

So the TD must rule based on the worst case, rather than the most likely one?

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-September-22, 08:51, said:

So the TD must rule based on the worst case, rather than the most likely one?

No, the TD only decides whether the offender could have been aware that the BIT could well damage the non-offenders, not whether he was more likely to be aware, nor whether it was more likely to damage the non-offending side than not. If he has no demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT (and a fumble is not deemed a demonstrable bridge reason) then in general he could be aware. And this is right. We don't want people "giving it a look" for whatever reason with nothing to look at.

[barmar]

You seem to be mixing up different laws. "could have been aware that an irregularity could well damage" is Law 23. I'm asking about 73, where it says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." If it's not such a situation, they don't have to be "particularly careful", so fumbling is not an irregularity. The determination of whether it's such a situation must be based on information that the player had available to him at the time of the action in question. We can't go back in time and say "Because SB was misled, it must have been a tempo-sensitive situation, so you should have been more careful." How is a player supposed to know when they have to be particularly careful if it requires mind reading or seeing the future?

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-September-24, 14:45, said:

You seem to be mixing up different laws. "could have been aware that an irregularity could well damage" is Law 23. I'm asking about 73, where it says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." If it's not such a situation, they don't have to be "particularly careful", so fumbling is not an irregularity. The determination of whether it's such a situation must be based on information that the player had available to him at the time of the action in question. We can't go back in time and say "Because SB was misled, it must have been a tempo-sensitive situation, so you should have been more careful." How is a player supposed to know when they have to be particularly careful if it requires mind reading or seeing the future?

When a player has the queen of a suit in which dummy has KJ, and when your partner is known to have the ace of the suit (or declarer would be too strong for a 4S opening bid), this seems a situation in which a player has to be particularly careful to play in tempo, and any TD should rule that fumbling is an irregularity under Law 73, especially as the fumble was caused, as admitted by CC, by detaching a card before he knew what suit was being led. Law 73F provides:

"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."

Even if you decide that the player did have a demonstrable bridge reason, but was not particularly careful, you can still use the catchall Law 23 to catch the corgi as it were. If you decide that he had a demonstrable bridge reason and was particularly careful, then you would indeed be right not to adjust. But you would risk an appeal to the National Authority.

[blackshoe]

When I read the OP, I did not read any "fumble" into the player's actions. He partially detached a card, expecting a trump lead, and when he didn't get a trump lead, he pushed that card back down and followed suit. No fumble.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2016-September-25, 12:21, said:

When I read the OP, I did not read any "fumble" into the player's actions. He partially detached a card, expecting a trump lead, and when he didn't get a trump lead, he pushed that card back down and followed suit. No fumble.

I think "fumble" is used colloquially for the more correct "break in tempo". Partially detaching a card for whatever reason, putting it back and then playing a different card is a "fumble" or, if you prefer, BIT. It matters not. SB did not claim a fumble. Barmar introduced the expression in #8: "How could he then come back and say that the fumble caused him to misguess?"

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure it's a break in tempo, either.

[StevenG]

Since SB noticed the card being put back, presumably he also noticed its replacement coming from a different part of CC's hand.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-September-25, 12:21, said:

When I read the OP, I did not read any "fumble" into the player's actions. He partially detached a card, expecting a trump lead, and when he didn't get a trump lead, he pushed that card back down and followed suit. No fumble.

SB's opinion is that actiona where you start playing one card and then switch to a different card are indistinguishable. Since it could be because you changed your mind about which card of the suit to follow with, it must be ruled as a violation of the Law requiring extra care in such situations.

But if it was clear that the player had actually started detaching the card before SB led to the trick, I don't see how he can claim that replacing the card could mislead.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2016-September-26, 01:36, said:

SB's opinion is that actiona where you start playing one card and then switch to a different card are indistinguishable. Since it could be because you changed your mind about which card of the suit to follow with, it must be ruled as a violation of the Law requiring extra care in such situations.

But if it was clear that the player had actually started detaching the card before SB led to the trick, I don't see how he can claim that replacing the card could mislead.

I will go even further than that:
The player had a legitimate bridge reason to expect another trump lead, and although it is incorrect to detach a card from his hand before that lead has actually been made it is quite excusable.

Now restoring that card to his hand and playing another does not indicate a change of mind as such. It doesn't even indicate that the player still has another trump.

His action only indicates that he had to change which card to play in order to avoid a revoke.

[lamford]

 StevenG, on 2016-September-25, 15:29, said:

Since SB noticed the card being put back, presumably he also noticed its replacement coming from a different part of CC's hand.

How would he know in which order CC's hand was sorted?

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-September-26, 01:36, said:

SB's opinion is that actiona where you start playing one card and then switch to a different card are indistinguishable. Since it could be because you changed your mind about which card of the suit to follow with, it must be ruled as a violation of the Law requiring extra care in such situations.

But if it was clear that the player had actually started detaching the card before SB led to the trick, I don't see how he can claim that replacing the card could mislead.

SB merely stated that there was a break in tempo. I wrote that SB stated: "There was a BIT by CC in a particularly sensitive situation." The OP narrated the reasons for the BIT, and indeed CC confirmed that the narration was accurate. SB made no other claims (until after the ruling) regarding the reason for the BIT. That is all conjecture. All the TD has to decide is a) whether there was a BIT; b) could CC have known that the BIT would deceive. The TD ruled "YES" and "YES". It is not SB's job to decide whether there was a change of mind or the reason for it.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-September-26, 02:06, said:

I will go even further than that:
The player had a legitimate bridge reason to expect another trump lead, and although it is incorrect to detach a card from his hand before that lead has actually been made it is quite excusable.

How is it excusable? I accept that it might be a legitimate bridge reason, but this was a situation where "extra care was necessary", as CC could work out that SB was very likely to have a club guess.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-September-26, 07:20, said:

How would he know in which order CC's hand was sorted?

And even if he did, he wouldn't violate the law prohibiting trying to see where he was pulling cards from.

[pran]

 pran, on 2016-September-26, 02:06, said:

I will go even further than that:
The player had a legitimate bridge reason to expect another trump lead, and although it is incorrect to detach a card from his hand before that lead has actually been made it is quite excusable.

Now restoring that card to his hand and playing another does not indicate a change of mind as such. It doesn't even indicate that the player still has another trump.

His action only indicates that he had to change which card to play in order to avoid a revoke.

 lamford, on 2016-September-26, 07:27, said:

How is it excusable? I accept that it might be a legitimate bridge reason, but this was a situation where "extra care was necessary", as CC could work out that SB was very likely to have a club guess.

Why is it not excusable when there is a legitimate bridge reason?

My qualified assumption is that when the defender managed to be slightly ahead of the lead from declarer in selecting which card to play it was because he expected another trump and prepared himself for his play in due time.

I don't suspect that the defender played any faster than normal, I suspect that declarer had a small break in tempo because of switching to a different suit.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2016-September-26, 08:49, said:

Why is it not excusable when there is a legitimate bridge reason?

But he didn't have a legitimate bridge reason to detach a card early in the first place.

Quote

I don't suspect that the defender played any faster than normal, I suspect that declarer had a small break in tempo because of switching to a different suit.

SB break tempo? Never!

Although if he did, could he also have violated 73D1? This is also a tempo-sensitive situation for the defenders.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2016-September-26, 08:49, said:

Why is it not excusable when there is a legitimate bridge reason?

My qualified assumption is that when the defender managed to be slightly ahead of the lead from declarer in selecting which card to play it was because he expected another trump and prepared himself for his play in due time.

I don't suspect that the defender played any faster than normal, I suspect that declarer had a small break in tempo because of switching to a different suit.

The declarer, SB, played at uniform speed. Usually fairly quickly as is his wont. The finding of fact as to whether there was a BIT by the Corgi was conducted by the TD, OO on this occasion, who decided there was. CC admitted as much. He estimated that he had taken two seconds to each of the first three rounds of trumps and four seconds to follow to the first round of clubs. He admitted to detaching one card before realising a club had been played The TD decided that he had nothing to think about on any of the four cards. In fact, OO thought CC might have wanted to give suit preference in trumps, so any BIT there would not have been in a sensitive situation and would not have deceived. However, the BIT on the first round of clubs was closer to a PP than to no adjustment. If CC had played low in tempo on the club, SB would almost surely play the jack from dummy, as West would often rise with the ace of clubs, necessary when South is 8-1-3-1. CC could have known that "simulating" the possession of the ace could well damage the non-offending side.

I am quite staggered that there is a single person not adjusting here, in a completely standard, routine position. I am also disappointed how few TDs are sticking their neck out and giving reasons why they would or would not.

[WellSpyder]

I'm confused. (No doubt SB's intention!) I thought if a player has a legitimate bridge reason to think then declarer draws any inferences from a BIT at his own risk - he can't decide he knows what the legitimate bridge reason is and then get an adjustment if he has decided wrongly.

(I still remember a county A-team defender hesitating for ages over a discard with only worthless cards in his hand at trick 10 or 11, causing my partner as declarer to play to have squeezed him rather than taking the finesse he had planned to take. The defender successfully claimed that he was trying to remember whether he needed to keep his last heart to avoid setting up one for declarer, even though all twelve of the other hearts had already been played.)

[lamford]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-September-26, 10:33, said:

I'm confused. (No doubt SB's intention!) I thought if a player has a legitimate bridge reason to think then declarer draws any inferences from a BIT at his own risk - he can't decide he knows what the legitimate bridge reason is and then get an adjustment if he has decided wrongly.

(I still remember a county A-team defender hesitating for ages over a discard with only worthless cards in his hand at trick 10 or 11, causing my partner as declarer to play to have squeezed him rather than taking the finesse he had planned to take. The defender successfully claimed that he was trying to remember whether he needed to keep his last heart to avoid setting up one for declarer, even though all twelve of the other hearts had already been played.)

I have experienced that as well, and think that while they are bridge reasons, they are not demonstrable bridge reasons. But even if it is a demonstrable bridge reason, there is a further requirement to be careful in sensitive situations. Otherwise there would be no purpose to the extra sentence: "However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." If somebody has a bridge reason but was not particularly careful, then one can adjust under Law 23. That is what I would do in the type of case you cite where someone could specify a spurious bridge reason.

And in this example, someone can and should be able to conclude that a BIT means the player has the ace, and he can and should be able to get an adjustment if that proves not to be the case. No other reason for the BIT should be accepted as a demonstrable bridge reason.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-September-26, 17:02, said:

No other reason for the BIT should be accepted as a demonstrable bridge reason.

But the actual reason, that he'd prematurely detached a card from the suit he expected declarer to play, is surely demonstrable.