[lamford]

---

This hand caused a lot of ill feeling at a North London club tonight. South was in 6S on the jack of hearts lead, and won in hand and advanced the jack of trumps. West took around 15 seconds to play the seven of spades, and declarer ducked in dummy. East won with the queen and returned a second heart, and declarer could no longer make the contract as the heart-club squeeze had been broken up.

South was one of the club's newest and nicest members, and she asked West, who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird, why he took so long to play the seven of spades on the first round. SB replied, "I was trying to construct a layout where it would be right for my partner to return a club if he won with a putative king of spades," he responded. "We play suit preference in trumps, and my seven of spades told partner to play a second heart. Otherwise declarer could have cashed the ace of clubs as a Vienna Coup, and I would have been squeezed in the rounded suits. There are layouts where a club was required, but they seemed less likely, and I note that a second heart was indeed the only defence."

South was still not happy and she asked the TD to rule. The TD stated: "If you have a good bridge reason for going into the tank, then the requirements for adjusting the score are not met. The opponent draws inferences about your hesitation at her own risk." He declined to adjust the score. An AC was summoned but they also refused to adjust the score. The gist of their ruling was "yes West does have something to think about. playing a small spade wouldn't be ridiculous. you have the right to give the matter as much thought as you need to make your mind up, assuming that's what you're doing. if your opp misguesses what you're thinking about, that's just unlucky for her." Another opinion of an AC member was: "i would be careless if i was thinking about the latest twist in Eastenders or what I should have bid on the previous round of the auction. as long as i have a genuine bridge reason for thinking and am careful to limit the duration of that thinking time to this issue, i've done everything the law requires." All three AC members declined to adjust the score, and South's deposit was retained. SB was heard gloating about his latest Laws triumph at the bar afterwards. South left the club and she vowed never to return, and swore at SB as she left.

Do you agree with the TD and the AC?

[mamos]

No one noticed the OLOOT?

[blackshoe]

I agree with South. :-)

[wank]

i think that west is legally correct. however, i do think the world be a happier place if signalling were excluded as a demonstrable bridge reason.

[lamford]

 wank, on 2015-October-23, 23:44, said:

i think that west is legally correct. however, i do think the world be a happier place if signalling were excluded as a demonstrable bridge reason.

I agree. And I think that the world would be a happier place if secretary birds were not allowed to exploit loopholes in the laws.

[pran]

It strikes me that West won the battle but (and also the club) lost the war.

Should this be how we encourage more bridge players?

[gnasher]

I think West is correct both legally and morally. I think the world would be a better place if everyone understood the rules of the game. It would, of course, help if those rules were written in English.

[ahydra]

What if West says "sorry, need to think about the whole hand"? That removes the possible inference that he is thinking about whether to cover. I don't think we can blanket-prevent people from thinking about what to signal (outside of the basics, which are already excluded in England iirc).

Of course the risk with announcing something like that is transmission of UI. Still, if partner ignores it, no problem - though I'm sure Paul will have another hand up his sleeve for this situation :-)

ahydra

[gordontd]

We have this regulation in the EBU in the White Book:

Quote

8.73.1 Hesitating with two small cards
Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1 makes clear that this is an infraction. 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 73F.

Is this any different?

[wanoff]

Not a great example of this topic.
With ♠Q West will always defend in tempo - and partner doesn't need a signal to break up a squeeze.
South is twice the fool, both for her anti-percentage line in trumps and for not reading a stupid West.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-24, 04:33, said:

We have this regulation in the EBU in the White Book:

8.73.1 Hesitating with two small cards
Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1 makes clear that this is an infraction. 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 73F.

Is this any different?

Although this is three small cards, I agree that the principle ought to be the same (the heading probably should be "Hesitating with two or more small cards") but it does not matter. The main point is that the White Book is not Law, and the vast majority of players have not read it. Also it says "not usually" considered. That implies that if a player considers that he has something to think about, as was the case here, then it is is a "demonstrable bridge reason".

[lamford]

 wanoff, on 2015-October-24, 04:43, said:

With ♠Q West will always defend in tempo - and partner doesn't need a signal to break up a squeeze.

I am pleased to learn that the standard of play in Birmingham has increased dramatically since I was last living there.

[pran]

 ahydra, on 2015-October-24, 04:05, said:

What if West says "sorry, need to think about the whole hand"? That removes the possible inference that he is thinking about whether to cover. I don't think we can blanket-prevent people from thinking about what to signal (outside of the basics, which are already excluded in England iirc).

Of course the risk with announcing something like that is transmission of UI. Still, if partner ignores it, no problem - though I'm sure Paul will have another hand up his sleeve for this situation :-)

ahydra

Much better, although an argument against him could still be that "thinking about the whole hand" is better done before the first trick is quitted.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-24, 04:33, said:

We have this regulation in the EBU in the White Book:

Quote

8.73.1 Hesitating with two small cards
Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1 makes clear that this is an infraction. 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 73F.

Is this any different?

Literally yes (EBU explicitly specifies two small cards), essentially NO.
The regulation really concerns hesitation with only small cards to select between when the "excuse" is that the player was thinking about whether or not to signal according to agreements.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-October-24, 05:54, said:

Literally yes (EBU explicitly specifies two small cards), essentially NO.

Perhaps the WB regulation deliberately uses "two" because with three small cards there are six ways of playing the cards over the first two rounds of the suit, all of which will give a different degree of suit preference and there is therefore more to think about and potentially more time required. If they had not meant "two" they would have just written "Hesitating with small cards". One must assume therefore that the extra word "two" means the regulation does not apply to three small cards.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2015-October-24, 04:54, said:

The main point is that the White Book is not Law, and the vast majority of players have not read it.

1. The WB is not law, it is regulation. Regulations have the force of law. Therefore, it does not matter that the WB is not law.
2. That a majority of players haven't read it is irrelevant. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-October-24, 08:24, said:

1. The WB is not law, it is regulation. Regulations have the force of law. Therefore, it does not matter that the WB is not law.
2. That a majority of players haven't read it is irrelevant. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

So, it seems you believe that tournament players have an obligation to read the White Book and find where it clarifies or supplements the Law Book? I had always believed that the White Book was for administrators and directors only. Do you also believe that they have to decide whether "two small cards" should read "two or more small cards", and act accordingly? Even SB does not do that. It worries me that wank and gnasher believe that West has acted legally, but others think that he has not. Based on the White Book.

[blackshoe]

I don't believe players have an obligation to read the law book, much less regulations. But if they run afoul of a law or regulation, the fact that they didn't read one or the other, or both, has no bearing on the ruling.

IMO "two small cards" means "two small cards". And nobody needs to decide whether it means something else. Nor should they.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2015-October-24, 04:54, said:

Although this is three small cards, I agree that the principle ought to be the same (the heading probably should be "Hesitating with two or more small cards") but it does not matter. The main point is that the White Book is not Law, and the vast majority of players have not read it. Also it says "not usually" considered. That implies that if a player considers that he has something to think about, as was the case here, then it is is a "demonstrable bridge reason".

West does have two small cards. I don't think it is relevant what the rest of his hand is.

[gnasher]

I'd forgotten that the EBU had that regulation. Obviously the intent is that it applies regardless of how many cards you happen to hold at the time.

However, I think the EBU's regulation is illegal. Bridge is a thinking game; signalling is part of bridge; therefore thinking about whether or how to signal is a bridge reason.

The wording is also a little offensive. "Players have argued" suggests that the authors think people merely argue that they were thinking, rather than that they actually were thinking. What is wrong with simply "Pausing to consider whether to signal is an infraction".