[PhilKing]

 lamford, on 2013-April-09, 09:05, said:

South did not get any adjustment, because the TD ruled that West had a demonstrable bridge reason - considering whether to discard the JH. And if that is what West was thinking about, I believe the Chief TD of the EBU would rule the same way, although he can correct me if I am wrong. As would, it seems, an erstwhile chair of the L&E.

Their principle seems to be that if West says he was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress.

Yes - I get that bit and definitely agree with you that West did not have a legitimate tank.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2013-April-09, 09:05, said:

Their principle seems to be that if West says he was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress.

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

[gnasher]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-09, 07:52, said:

Overall I'd agree with gnasher that a weighted score is best for NS. I'd go with 60% of 3NT+1 and 40% of 3NT=, with EW getting -430.

Is that legal? You can't use 12c1e as well as 12c1c.

Anyway, the English regulations explicitly tell us not to do it:
WB 12.1.5(d): It is not normal to have an adjusted score that is both split and weighted except in these three situations, ie when the non-offenders get part of their redress reduced, when both sides are treated as non-offending, and when both sides are treated as offending.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2013-April-09, 09:15, said:

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

How could you find out what West was thinking about, other than by asking him?

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-April-09, 09:21, said:

How could you find out what West was thinking about, other than by asking him?

You ask him what he was thinking about, and then you use your judgement, your experience and your knowledge of the individual to evaluate his answer.

[WellSpyder]

 gordontd, on 2013-April-09, 09:15, said:

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

I thought it was normal to be a bit stricter than this. For example, if declarer leads up to KJx and a defender with Q42 thinks about whether to signal length or not. Or if declarer finesses against KQ in a suit and the last hand to play thinks about whether winning with K or Q might be more misleading (maybe he wants to make it trickier for declarer to place another missing card by counting points, or something). Both of those are genuine bridge decisions. But is it really OK to spend time thinking about these in a situation like this where you almost know it will mislead declarer?

[aguahombre]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-April-09, 09:57, said:

I thought it was normal to be a bit stricter than this. For example, if declarer leads up to KJx and a defender with Q42 thinks about whether to signal length or not. Or if declarer finesses against KQ in a suit and the last hand to play thinks about whether winning with K or Q might be more misleading (maybe he wants to make it trickier for declarer to place another missing card by counting points, or something). Both of those are genuine bridge decisions. But is it really OK to spend time thinking about these in a situation like this where you almost know it will mislead declarer?

You raise a good point. Principles are not hard and fast rules, and you are addressing an exception.

[gordontd]

 WellSpyder, on 2013-April-09, 09:57, said:

I thought it was normal to be a bit stricter than this. For example, if declarer leads up to KJx and a defender with Q42 thinks about whether to signal length or not. Or if declarer finesses against KQ in a suit and the last hand to play thinks about whether winning with K or Q might be more misleading (maybe he wants to make it trickier for declarer to place another missing card by counting points, or something). Both of those are genuine bridge decisions. But is it really OK to spend time thinking about these in a situation like this where you almost know it will mislead declarer?

We have a White Book regulation based on Law 73D that tells us these sorts of decisions are not demonstrable bridge reasons for this purpose.

Quote

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.

But when a player is genuinely choosing which card to play because it may make a difference, other than in the sense of signalling or misleading (both of which the player should have taken care to prepare for earlier in the play), then that seems to me to be a demonstrable bridge reason. Whether or not that applied in the case that started this thread was for the director to decide.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2013-April-09, 10:32, said:

But when a player is genuinely choosing which card to play because it may make a difference, other than in the sense of signalling or misleading (both of which the player should have taken care to prepare for earlier in the play), then that seems to me to be a demonstrable bridge reason. Whether or not that applied in the case that started this thread was for the director to decide.

"Should have taken care" presumes that the player is sufficiently skilled that he may do this - as opposed to the players who don't think about what card to play to a trick until it's their turn to play to the trick, because they have no idea what they're doing.

[ahydra]

I agree that for 99.5%+ of players, expecting one to plan your discards and deceptive plays in advance is a bit much, and if you tank on a card then chances are you have a good reason - at least in your mind - for thinking about which card to play. The TD probably needs to ask more questions than just "what were you thinking about" - skill level alone is a poor indicator of whether the decision should be "obvious" to that player or not. For example, I'm generally a bad cardplayer and often have to stop and count whether if I duck, I still have two stops in the suit or now just one, etc, where other players of my skill level would know that without even thinking.

I got the impression from this thread that the West player involved was of a high standard. Hence I would expect him to plan his plays in advance more than others and that was the basis for my (somewhat illegal) ruling. Perhaps the TD had reason to think otherwise, and if so, I'm in no position to question his judgement, though perhaps he might have asked West some follow-up questions, for example "why didn't you choose five discards for the diamonds back at trick 3", or "how did you think discarding the ♥J might have helped". (The purpose is to try to judge whether the "could have misled" outweighs the "demonstrable bridge reason", not to poke fun at West!)

ahydra

[Vampyr]

 ahydra, on 2013-April-10, 06:19, said:

I got the impression from this thread that the West player involved was of a high standard. Hence I would expect him to plan his plays in advance more than others and that was the basis for my (somewhat illegal) ruling. Perhaps the TD had reason to think otherwise, and if so, I'm in no position to question his judgement, though perhaps he might have asked West some follow-up questions, for example "why didn't you choose five discards for the diamonds back at trick 3", or "how did you think discarding the ♥J might have helped". (The purpose is to try to judge whether the "could have misled" outweighs the "demonstrable bridge reason", not to poke fun at West!)

Yes, this was a strong player and one who bared his ♥J without obvious thought.

Anyway, part of the problem with the ruling was that the director thought that for us to be damaged, the hesitation would have had to be deliberate and done for the purpose of deceiving. We would have felt more comfortable with the ruling if the director had understood the laws involved.

[nige1]

A simpler example. Suppose, at IMPs and favourable vulnerability, you held ♠ x x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ x x
Partner opened a weak notrump and you tanked for a long time before passing. As you suspected, opponents can make game. Your LHO complained to the director: He assumed that you were considering a raise, so he passed on his 14-count. You explained to the director that you were thinking about "Garbage Stayman" but eventually decided that a pass would provide less opportunity for opponents to enter the auction. IMO

• Your Bridge reason for thinking is demonstrable; and valid in so as far it goes.
• You could have known that your tank would be likely to mislead LHO
• A long tank is especially misleading.
• The director should probably rule against you even if he completely believes your explanation.

[aguahombre]

But he would be pretty dumb to completely believe the explanation

[billw55]

 nige1, on 2013-April-10, 20:06, said:

A simpler example. Suppose, at IMPs and favourable vulnerability, you held ♠ x x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x x x x ♣ x x
Partner opened a weak notrump and you tanked for a long time before passing. As you suspected, opponents can make game. Your LHO complained to the director: He assumed that you were considering a raise, so he passed on his 14-count. You explained to the director that you were thinking about "Garbage Stayman" but eventually decided that a pass would provide less opportunity for opponents to enter the auction. IMO

• Your Bridge reason for thinking is demonstrable; and valid in so as far it goes.
• You could have known that your tank would be likely to mislead LHO
• A long tank is especially misleading.
• The director should probably rule against you even if he completely believes your explanation.

Maybe it's just me but the two parts I bolded, in combination, sound clean contrary to the wording of law 73F.

Maybe people should consider giving less weight to inferences from tempo? Or be less judgmental about what things they think are acceptable for someone else to be thinking about?

[nige1]

 billw55, on 2013-April-11, 07:01, said:

Maybe it's just me but the two parts I bolded, in combination, sound clean contrary to the wording of law 73F. Maybe people should consider giving less weight to inferences from tempo? Or be less judgmental about what things they think are acceptable for someone else to be thinking about?

TFLB L73F said:

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 (see Law 12C).

billw55 may well be right. I cling to the hope that the the director may judge that the bridge problem is worth thought but there is no demonstrable reason for a long tank -- even when the tanker is genuinely convinced that he faces a 2-pipe problem.