[gnasher]

Vampyr, on Jul 10 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

I have experienced this in Europe, and I found it to be very helpful. I see no reason why it could not be introduced in England.

I have experienced it in Norway. Where else do they do it?

I think it an excellent idea, though I would note that when I encountered this procedure for the first time it was on the third day of an event, so it seems that this rule isn't widely observed. That was a couple of years ago, though, so maybe things have changed.

[jallerton]

roghog, on Jul 8 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

N--E--S--W
1D-1H-P-1S
3C-P--?

---

South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed.
The next hand bid and EW reached the par contract.
At the end of the hand, EW realise how weak S's hand is and call the TD. While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing.
South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought.
As TD, how do you handle this one?

As the TD, I would handle this case by asking South to explain why she felt she had a difficult problem and then I would consider the plausibility of her answer.

I would then read out all of Law 73D1 and Law 73F to the whole table and explain how these Laws apply (or not) to this situation.

[axman]

jallerton, on Jul 11 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

roghog, on Jul 8 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

N--E--S--W
1D-1H-P-1S
3C-P--?

---

South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed.
The next hand bid and EW reached the par contract.
At the end of the hand, EW realise how weak S's hand is and call the TD. While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing.
South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought.
As TD, how do you handle this one?

As the TD, I would handle this case by asking South to explain why she felt she had a difficult problem and then I would consider the plausibility of her answer.

I would then read out all of Law 73D1 and Law 73F to the whole table and explain how these Laws apply (or not) to this situation.

I believe that there was a time when having a valid bridge reason [for needing the time taken to consider] was a sufficient defense to an assertion of improper deception. Past tense used because there currently is a lack of such provision in the law.

[blackshoe]

It is true that 73D doesn't use the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason", but that does not mean the TD should ignore the existence of such a reason in ruling. 73D1 says "…unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call is made is not in itself an infraction…", and 73D2 says "…may not attempt to mislead…", so I would certainly consider the argument "I had a good reason for breaking tempo" in determining whether that break was unintentional.

The wording of 73D1 implies, to me at least, that cases where the "players should be particularly careful" clause should be invoked in aid of ruling that there was an infraction should be fairly rare.

[axman]

blackshoe, on Jul 11 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

It is true that 73D doesn't use the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason", but that does not mean the TD should ignore the existence of such a reason in ruling. 73D1 says "…unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call is made is not in itself an infraction…", and 73D2 says "…may not attempt to mislead…", so I would certainly consider the argument "I had a good reason for breaking tempo" in determining whether that break was unintentional.

The wording of 73D1 implies, to me at least, that cases where the "players should be particularly careful" clause should be invoked in aid of ruling that there was an infraction should be fairly rare.

THe law provides no mitigation for the infraction of :

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

Being not particularly careful is an infraction.

If there are implications to be made it is that the removal of the mitigation from law suggests that there are no mitigating factors. Which is quite the opposite of what you assert. Robert Frick has a thread running this month on blml concerning what I'll describe as jury nullification. It may be of interest or not.

[TimG]

roghog, on Jul 8 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed.

While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing.

South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought.

Quote

I believe that there was a time when having a valid bridge reason [for needing the time taken to consider] was a sufficient defense to an assertion of improper deception. Past tense used because there currently is a lack of such provision in the law.

Isn't there a difference between taking 10-15 seconds to consider the valid bridge reason and taking 60 second to consider the valid bridge reason? It seems to me that a player with international experience ought to be able to consider this sort of evaluation/tactical bridge reason without "lengthy thought". That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

[TMorris]

From very limited experience, I find when playing against players with international experience that they take more time to think about things rather than less time.

[blackshoe]

axman, on Jul 11 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

THe law provides no mitigation for the infraction of :

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

Being not particularly careful is an infraction. 

Not being particularly careful is an infraction only when variations may work to the benefit of the putative offending side.

Quote

If there are implications to be made it is that the removal of the mitigation from law suggests that there are no mitigating factors.  Which is quite the opposite of what you assert.  Robert Frick has a thread running this month on blml concerning  what I'll describe as jury nullification.  It may be of interest or not.

It does not suggest that to me. As for blml, and Mr. Frick's thread there, no, not of interest.

[peachy]

axman, on Jul 11 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

Robert Frick has a thread running this month on blml concerning what I'll describe as jury nullification. It may be of interest or not.

Not.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on Jul 11 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive.

[axman]

blackshoe, on Jul 11 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 11 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive.

I have inserted the antecedent:

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, <when variations will not work to the benefit of their side,> then 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.

There are two primary avenues where variations may [unfairly] benefit one's side
[a] extraneous inferences taken by partner
[b] decpetive inferences given improperly to the opponents

The law provides that if there is exists a deceptive [benefit to one's side] inference [as from a variation in manner] there is an infraction.

[peachy]

axman, on Jul 11 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 11 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 11 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive.

I have inserted the antecedent:

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, <when variations will not work to the benefit of their side,> then 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.

There are two primary avenues where variations may [unfairly] benefit one's side
[a] extraneous inferences taken by partner
[b] decpetive inferences given improperly to the opponents

The law provides that if there is exists a deceptive [benefit to one's side] inference [as from a variation in manner] there is an infraction.

You added a phrase to the law text. Here it is what the law 73D1 actually says:

BEGIN
D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. I t 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.
END

[blackshoe]

It is entirely possible that a player might break tempo with no intention whatsoever of deceiving anyone, and that an opponent might draw a false inference from the BIT. If this happens, then the TD should be called, and the TD must determine whether the situation is one in which the opponent who drew the false inference must bear the consequences, or whether the player who broke tempo failed to take particular care "when variations may work to the benefit of their side". It is entirely possible that the situation is not one of the latter — an auction where, for example, the player might be expected to have a problem. Or it might be one — for example, as I mentioned earlier, when the player whose turn it is to play has a singleton. It cannot be the case that whenever a player has broken tempo, and an opponent has drawn a false inference, the player shall be ruled to have violated Law 73D1. Even if he is so ruled, however, there is no implication of deception in such a ruling. BTW, according to my dictionary, "deceive" comes from the Latin decipere ‘catch, ensnare, cheat’ (emphasis mine).

[axman]

axman, on Jul 11 2010, 02:47 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 11 2010, 02:09 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 11 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive.

I have inserted the antecedent:

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, <when variations will not work to the benefit of their side,> then 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.

There are two primary avenues where variations may [unfairly] benefit one's side
[a] extraneous inferences taken by partner
[b] decpetive inferences given improperly to the opponents

The law provides that if there is exists a deceptive [benefit to one's side] inference [as from a variation in manner] there is an infraction.

Yesterday I suffered a brain aneurism during which I asserted that the law no longer provides for the mitigation of the infraction of not being particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

The words that were not there for me yesterday are there for me today. Hopefully my brain will heal and I then will correct those things perpetrated that need correcting.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Jul 11 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 11 2010, 12:13 PM, said:

That is, it seems to me that even if there is a valid bridge reason to consider, at some point the length of consideration could move from entitled to think to improper deception.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive.

I am not sure that it matters, but surely what you say here is just wrong?

If you take an action that is legitimate and it deceives opponents, eg a false card, then there is no problem.

If you take an action that is not legitimate and it deceives opponents then a Law may provide redress. This is improper deception. Examples are deliberately hesitating with a singleton to try to fool opponents, and accidentally hesitating with a singleton because you were thinking of something else which happens to fool opponents.

Now while both of these are improper, being infractions under Laws 73D2 and 73D1 respectively, only the first one is unethical. But there may be an adjustment under Law 73F for either.

[blackshoe]

Yes, but the key point in the 73D1 case is that there was no deception involved, only an erroneous conclusion by the NOS in a situation where the offender failed to be particularly careful about his tempo.

To me, there is a difference between "I was deceived" and "I attempted to deceive". The latter is a deception case, the former is simply an error on the part of the person making the statement. Remember that in most 73D1 cases, the non-offenders make inferences from a break in tempo or the like at their own risk, unless the offending side has breached "particularly careful".

[nige1]

roghog, on Jul 8 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

N--E--S--W
1D-1H-P-1S
3C-P--?
South, an experienced international player, thought for a long time and eventually passed. The next hand bid and EW reached the par contract. At the end of the hand, EW realise how weak S's hand is and call the TD. While accepting that S had to decide between passing and a tactical raise, they felt that a very long "think" in this position can unfairly spoof the next hand into passing. South said it was a tough decision and needed lengthy thought. As TD, how do you handle this one?

---

IMO South showed a poor hand by passing after North opened but his partner's jump rebid showed extra strength and distribution. The discovery of the ♣ fit further improved offensive prospects and there are players who would have raised, although South concluded that it was over-optimistic. South seems to have faced a genuine dilemma. He does not appear to have used tempo to deceive opponents.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Jul 12 2010, 04:14 PM, said:

Yes, but the key point in the 73D1 case is that there was no deception involved, only an erroneous conclusion by the NOS in a situation where the offender failed to be particularly careful about his tempo.

To me, there is a difference between "I was deceived" and "I attempted to deceive". The latter is a deception case, the former is simply an error on the part of the person making the statement. Remember that in most 73D1 cases, the non-offenders make inferences from a break in tempo or the like at their own risk, unless the offending side has breached "particularly careful".

No, not necessarily. The former is either a mistake by the player or it is a failure by his opponent to take sufficient care. According to the Law, if a player is deceived by his opponent taking insufficient care in a tempo-sensitive situation, that is improper deception subject to adjustment, even though not unethical if not intended.

Suppose you lead the ♦J towards KTx in the dummy. LHO hesitates then plays small. There are three possibilities.

1. He is unethical: he has hesitated with a singleton to try to get you to misread the hand. This is a Law 73D2 case. We adjust and consider further action.

2. He has hesitated improperly: he has a singleton but was distracted by the legs of the girl at the next table. This is a Law 73D1 case. We adjust.

3. He has something to think about: he was considering covering with the queen. However, declarer decides to play him for the ace because he does not believe he would cover with the queen. That is not illegal at all: misreading what the hesitation means is tough. We do not adjust.

Deception is something that deceives, whether intentionally or not. All three are deception cases, one unethical, one improper, one legal.

[blackshoe]

I disagree, but I suppose it does not matter, as we will both rule the same way in the end.