[lamford]

---

This was the first board on Tuesday at the North London club, and a former member, Douglas the Donkey, had made the trip through Storm Emma from Devon to play. He arrived a couple of minutes late, at 7.32, and Freddie the Ferret, the scorer, was frantically adding a second rover to the movement. There were already 17 tables, despite the bad weather, and the NS and EW rovers were given displacement cards to allow 18 tables after the start. SB and MM, North, had a poor auction on the first board to the good but not best slam with MM using simple Blackwood.

"Won't they meet each other more than once?" asked RR, West, as he considered his lead against 6H by South. "No", replied SB, South; "the excellent double-Rover movement by gordontd and JeffSmith caters for that. Now let us play this board please," he rebuked.

RR led the jack of spades and SB won in South and led the three of hearts. RR took a full 30 seconds to play the king, and this came as a bit of a surprise to SB, and, after winning with the ace, he played a heart to the jack; when the later club finesse lost he went one off, for what transpired to be a joint bottom. SB noted that he could still have made it by eliminating the pointed suits and throwing TT, East, in with a heart, but that would have failed if East had a fourth card in either pointed suit. A couple of the poorer players who butchered the hearts missed slam, so it became a 5% board for SB and MM.

"Director, please!" bellowed SB. "RR hesitated for nearly a minute with a singleton, in a sensitive position where he could have been aware it would damage NS. If he had played the king in tempo, I would have finessed the eight on the second round." "I was quite surprised he had found the 'baby false-card' from KT doubleton at all, but not that it had taken him so long to find it."

OO arrived. RR agreed that he had taken a while, but disputed "nearly a minute", and said "I was thinking how the NS and EW rovers would not play each other more than once." "That is not a bridge reason, RR," responded SB, "and about as much of a reason as thinking how many carrots you would use for your next carrot soup".

"I could not have KT doubleton or I would have played the ten first," protested RR. "I always follow second-hand plays low".

How do you rule?

[sanst]

In favour of SB. But please, stop bellowing. RR's arguments are pure nonsense. Playing the K from a KT holding is maybe beyond his bridge capacities, but a better player will do this as about the only way to beat the contract. And thinkng about the rovers, don't make me laugh.
Actually, I consider a notable BIT by W a clear breach of Law 73D and a violation according to Law 74C7, which deserves a PP. But then SB usual manner also deserves such a punishment.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2018-March-06, 16:16, said:

And thinkng about the rovers, don't make me laugh.

You don't know the Rabbit very well, do you?

SB's antics are what the military calls "prejudicial to good order and discipline" and thus rate a disciplinary penalty. IMO, of course.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2018-March-06, 21:26, said:

You don't know the Rabbit very well, do you?

Quite happy not to be a member of that club. Victor Mollo's books and lamford's contributions are more than enough for me.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-March-07, 02:51, said:

Quite happy not to be a member of that club. Victor Mollo's books and lamford's contributions are more than enough for me.

Every club that I have been to has its RR and SB.

[pran]

lamford, on 2018-March-07, 03:57, said:

Every club that I have been to has its RR and SB.

Do they have a grown-up TD?

[Tramticket]

It seems to me (and I have no experience of directing), that the ruling depends on OO's judgment as to whether the hesitation was intentional.

If, at one extreme, OO believes that RR was intentionally attempting to mislead SB through the hesitation then 73.D.2 and 73.E.2 apply as well as 74.C.7. The score is adjusted and a procedural penalty will likely be appropriate. I suspect, based on the facts presented, that OO would reach the conclusion that there was no intention to deceive.

If, at the other extreme, OO believes that the hesitation was unintentional and there was no reason for RR to believe that the hesitation might work to his advantage, then 73.D.1 applies. No infraction has been committed and the inference drawn by SB is at his own risk.

However 73.D.1 also states that "players should be particularly careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side". I suspect that OO would reach the conclusion that RR has not been particularly careful (or at all careful) and that RR should have known (even if he probably didn't know) that the variation in tempo might benefit his side. On this basis I would expect OO not to adjust the score but to give a reprimand or more likely (since I suspect he might be a repeat offender) a procedural penalty against RR.

[Vampyr]

Tramticket, on 2018-March-07, 07:16, said:

It seems to me (and I have no experience of directing), that the ruling depends on OO's judgment as to whether the hesitation was intentional.

No, this is not relevant in the case itself; the charge against RR for cheating may be made, but that is a separate matter.

[blackshoe]

Whether RR should have known his BIT might benefit his side is, legally, irrelevant. It matters only whether he could have known.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-March-07, 08:41, said:

Whether RR should have known his BIT might benefit his side is, legally, irrelevant. It matters only whether he could have known.

Indeed, and a PP should only be awarded when the TD thinks he did know.

[StevenG]

Every player with any experience knows that a BIT with a singleton might benefit his side.

[barmar]

Tramticket, on 2018-March-07, 07:16, said:

RR has not been particularly careful (or at all careful)

Is he ever?

Quote

and that RR should have known (even if he probably didn't know)

Does he ever?

We're talking about RR -- the most clueless, but luckiest, player in the bridge world.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2018-March-07, 07:16, said:

If, at one extreme, OO believes that RR was intentionally attempting to mislead SB through the hesitation then 73.D.2 and 73.E.2 apply as well as 74.C.7. The score is adjusted and a procedural penalty will likely be appropriate. I suspect, based on the facts presented, that OO would reach the conclusion that there was no intention to deceive.

Strange, I suspect that he would reach the opposite conclusion unless RR was a beginner or senile. I see that 73.D.2 explicitly cites "hesitating before playing a singleton" as an example of a manifestation of intent to mislead.

Also, I don't see how 74.C.7 could apply - surely that is about trying to disconcert the opponent by changing tempo of play compared to previous tricks, not about a single break in otherwise normal tempo.

blackshoe, on 2018-March-07, 08:41, said:

Whether RR should have known his BIT might benefit his side is, legally, irrelevant. It matters only whether he could have known.

I agree, but I find it hard to see what the law is getting at here: if he knows he is out of tempo then surely it is implicit that he "could" know that his opponent will draw the inference that he did not have a singleton. Maybe it's just a dodge to be able to rule against the player without actually accusing him of unethical behaviour.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2018-March-07, 11:20, said:

I agree, but I find it hard to see what the law is getting at here: if he knows he is out of tempo then surely it is implicit that he "could" know that his opponent will draw the inference that he did not have a singleton. Maybe it's just a dodge to be able to rule against the player without actually accusing him of unethical behaviour.

No, the laws are written deliberately so that you can rule against people without accusing them of unethical behaviour.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-March-07, 11:20, said:

I agree, but I find it hard to see what the law is getting at here: if he knows he is out of tempo then surely it is implicit that he "could" know that his opponent will draw the inference that he did not have a singleton. Maybe it's just a dodge to be able to rule against the player without actually accusing him of unethical behaviour.

There will be times when hesitating with a singleton could not deceive. For example, it is the last trump and you are going to play it, and declarer has just drawn it. You think declarer may lead towards KJ in dummy on the next trick; you have the ace but not the queen and need to decide whether to rise. There was an example in EBU Appeal Booklet 2015 where a defender hesitated with a singleton trump (for quite some time) because declarer had led from the wrong hand and he wanted to see whether his partner wanted to make declarer lead from the right hand. This was (correctly) deemed a legitimate bridge reason. A hesitation with a singleton at trick one as partner of the opening leader is permitted, and playing too quickly could transmit UI. So, this Law requires that you could be aware it might deceive. That is the case here. We would clearly punish ChCh for another ruse; we must similarly punish RR.