[KingCovert]

barmar, on 2019-December-13, 11:21, said:

It's a tricky balancing act. Players are allowed to think when necessary, and opponents take inferences at their own risk.

But the purpose of that Law is to prevent coffee-housing -- the player must not try to mislead an opponent with their tempo. E.g. the player shouldn't stop to think if they don't have the Ace.

And isn't that exactly what happened here? From declarer's perspective, what else could East have been thining about except whether to play the Ace?

On the other hand, why would anyone even consider playing the Ace when you lead towards a Jack in a NT contract? What 's the rush, and you could crash partner's honor? So maybe declarer should (correctly) infer that East was thinking about something else, like what to signal.

But to avoid this problem, players are expected to plan ahead so they can maintain consistent tempo to the extent possible. If you have the Ace before dummy's King, you decide early on what you'll do if declarer leads towards it. If you decide to duck, you then duck smoothly.

This isn't always possible, sometimes things change unexpectedly and you have to revise your plans quickly. This is why the Law allows you to hesitate if you have a "demonstrable bridge reason".

That's a really stupid law. It's completely inequitable.

If you have a reservation with a defender breaking tempo to misrepresent their hand, then surely you have an issue with a declarer changing their line of play based on a legitimate break in tempo? If the situation really was AXX opposite TX, could defender's have called the director? If defender's were to call the director, and there was such a law to provide them with recourse, you'd have to somehow prove that declarer intended to play the 9. Good luck proving that. This is getting too deep into the realm of intent, and as any sports fan will tell you, rules that require proof of intent are always garbage and improperly officiated.

Setting aside whether you would personally do it, I know I don't, but, a break in tempo with a holding that doesn't justify it is simply gamesmanship. If you allow yourself to get duped by it, well, that's the way things go sometimes. If you think this sounds bad, well, it sounds no worse than reading into a break in tempo. If you break tempo and opponent makes a decision after the break in tempo that they wouldn't make without the BIT, and it's the only way to make the contract, that's also the way things go sometimes.

It's not like declarer was forced to take any decisions here. If you choose to assume that the BIT shows the ace, then, you do so at your own peril. And so, your last post is irrelevant in my mind. Percentages that assume the Ace is in a seat, are percentages based on an exposed card I suppose. Since, that's the only way you'll be certain. To even start rationalizing with such an argument is to support taking an inference from the BIT. A subjective moral position with no objective superiority though.

[Vampyr]

KingCovert, on 2019-December-13, 17:47, said:

Setting aside whether you would personally do it, I know I don't, but, a break in tempo with a holding that doesn't justify it is simply gamesmanship. If you allow yourself to get duped by it, well, that's the way things go sometimes. If you think this sounds bad, well, it sounds no worse than reading into a break in tempo. If you break tempo and opponent makes a decision after the break in tempo that they wouldn't make without the BIT, and it's the only way to make the contract, that's also the way things go sometimes.

All of the above is incorrect.

Quote

It's not like declarer was forced to take any decisions here. If you choose to assume that the BIT shows the ace, then, you do so at your own peril.

No. Declarer is entitled to protection,

[blackshoe]

What law was infracted by the hesitation?

Cyberyeti says he's a cheat. Is it not possible that he's just not very good?

I have a partner who, as declarer, having won trick one, typically takes more time thinking before leading to trick two than he did before playing from dummy to trick one. Not sure whether this is just because he's methodical or he's not at all sure what to do next. But I know damn well he's not cheating.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-13, 19:38, said:

What law was infracted by the hesitation?

Cyberyeti says he's a cheat. Is it not possible that he's just not very good?

I have a partner who, as declarer, having won trick one, typically takes more time thinking before leading to trick two than he did before playing from dummy to trick one. Not sure whether this is just because he's methodical or he's not at all sure what to do next. But I know damn well he's not cheating.

That accusation was specific to this situation. It is well established that you're not allowed to hesitate to choose which of a number of small cards to play, I've not seen this in law, but I've had it quoted to me by directors often enough that it seems it may be taught as not a bridge reason, hence the assumption of the ace would normally be protected here.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-December-14, 05:52, said:

That accusation was specific to this situation. It is well established that you're not allowed to hesitate to choose which of a number of small cards to play, I've not seen this in law, but I've had it quoted to me by directors often enough that it seems it may be taught as not a bridge reason, hence the assumption of the ace would normally be protected here.

VixTD cited this as:

Quote

[WB8.73.1] Pausing to consider whether to signal is an infraction, under Law 73D1. The player has failed to be ‘particularly careful in positions where variations (in tempo) may work to the benefit of their side’ and to do so is not usually considered ‘a demonstrable bridge reason’ for the purposes of Law 73E2.

I assume the reference is to WBF minutes, does anyone know from when?
It seems dubious that pausing to consider whether and how to signal can not be considered ‘a demonstrable bridge reason’, even if one accepts the logic that failing to maintain tempo may work to the the benefit of the player in that his opponent has a right to base his choice of play on such variation.

[blackshoe]

WB 8.73.1 refers to the EBU White Book.

[pran]

pescetom, on 2019-December-14, 09:40, said:

It seems dubious that pausing to consider whether and how to signal can not be considered ‘a demonstrable bridge reason’, even if one accepts the logic that failing to maintain tempo may work to the the benefit of the player in that his opponent has a right to base his choice of play on such variation.

I believe we generally rule that pausing to consider whether or not a player shall false-signal is not itself acceptable as a demonstrable bridge reason.
The player should have foreseen this situation in advance and made up his mind so that no noticeable hesitation is needed at the time of the play.

Hesitation is only acceptable when following play to a clearly unexpected lead or play.

[TylerE]

pran, on 2019-December-14, 11:54, said:

I believe we generally rule that pausing to consider whether or not a player shall false-signal is not itself acceptable as a demonstrable bridge reason.
The player should have foreseen this situation in advance and made up his mind so that no noticeable hesitation is needed at the time of the play.

Hesitation is only acceptable when following play to a clearly unexpected lead or play.

Given that (alleged) hesitator was the opening leader, and this is his first opportunity to have a think after seeing dummy, when SHOULD he consider when to make some future false card if not now?

[lamford]

TylerE, on 2019-December-14, 13:40, said:

Given that (alleged) hesitator was the opening leader, and this is his first opportunity to have a think after seeing dummy, when SHOULD he consider when to make some future false card if not now?

Before quitting trick one.

[pran]

TylerE, on 2019-December-14, 13:40, said:

Given that (alleged) hesitator was the opening leader, and this is his first opportunity to have a think after seeing dummy, when SHOULD he consider when to make some future false card if not now?

So long as the lead to trick 2 is made less than 10 seconds after dummy's hand is faced we do not consider any hesitation unjustified.

Primarily we recommend declarer to take his pause (up to 10 seconds) immediately after dummy faces his cards. If he plays sooner to trick 1 then the remaining time is at the disposal for RHO.

[blackshoe]

Ten seconds is not a whole lot of time to plan the play or defense of a hand.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-14, 18:05, said:

Ten seconds is not a whole lot of time to plan the play or defense of a hand.

In practice, for example watching the Reisinger, there are many hands where declarer plays almost immediately at trick one, as does the defender. 73D1 states:

1. It is desirable, though not always required, fo 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 an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.

In a sense this contradicts 73E2, quoted by VixTD:
2. If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

Note that it does not say "may award an adjusted score", it says "shall". So, declarer does act on the information at their own risk, but you have to have a bridge reason for the BIT. If you have, then like ChCh with ATx, you are in the clear. East in the original hand with Txxx is not in the clear. If he wanted to think at trick two he should do it before quitting trick one.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that it takes people who play in the Reisinger a lot less time to figure out how to play or defend a hand that it does me, or any number of other players not at that level of expertise. Are we going to set the time allowed to be allocated to thinking about the play or defense of a hand to how long Speedy Gonzalez takes, or are we going to allow Joe Average a reasonable amount of time?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-14, 21:06, said:

I suspect that it takes people who play in the Reisinger a lot less time to figure out how to play or defend a hand that it does me, or any number of other players not at that level of expertise. Are we going to set the time allowed to be allocated to thinking about the play or defense of a hand to how long Speedy Gonzalez takes, or are we going to allow Joe Average a reasonable amount of time?

Both defenders can take as long as they like at trick one, and do not need to quit that trick until they have thought about the whole hand. And if the defender has a demonstrable bridge reason to think on any future trick then they are allowed to do so as well. But case law indicates that thinking which small card to play is not a demonstrable bridge reason.

[Cascade]

lamford, on 2019-December-15, 19:00, said:

Both defenders can take as long as they like at trick one, and do not need to quit that trick until they have thought about the whole hand. And if the defender has a demonstrable bridge reason to think on any future trick then they are allowed to do so as well. But case law indicates that thinking which small card to play is not a demonstrable bridge reason.

There is no law that allows a player not to quit a trick until they have thought about the whole hand (for as long as they like).

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2019-December-16, 12:00, said:

There is no law that allows a player not to quit a trick until they have thought about the whole hand (for as long as they like).

There's no law that prohibits him either.

[VixTD]

Cascade, on 2019-December-16, 12:00, said:

There is no law that allows a player not to quit a trick until they have thought about the whole hand (for as long as they like).

In England and Wales we have:

Quote

[WB1.6.6] It is acceptable practice to leave a card face up at the end of a trick while a player considers the later play. No one should play to the next trick until the cards played to the current trick have been turned face down.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-16, 14:28, said:

There's no law that prohibits him either.

The relevant law about the quitted trick is:
65A. Completed Trick
When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

It does not set a time limit for each player to turn his own card face down, but the trick is not completed until all four players have, so there is a permitted thinking time, borne out by practice. It probably should say, "each player, when he chooses to do so, turns his own card face down ..."

Notwithstanding the above, each player is still entitled to think at trick two, but only for a demonstrable bridge reason.

[blackshoe]

Bridge is a thinking game. If we're not entitled to think, what does that do to the game?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-December-17, 09:46, said:

Bridge is a thinking game. If we're not entitled to think, what does that do to the game?

I need to think about that. Oops, they're calling the round....