[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-03, 08:12, said:

if we're going to rule in this case that West "could have been" deliberately cheating, then we should so rule in future whenever the SB is the target of "could have known", because given SB's knowledge of the laws, he is more likely to "have known" than anybody else.

I agree wholeheartedly, and SB would expect nothing less. His motto is "live by the sword, die by the sword".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 17:09, said:

And SB would be quite happy if you quit bridge if your ingenious "nose-blowing-bit" was ruled against.

It sounds to me like SB's purpose in life is to prevent anyone else from having any fun.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 16:58, said:

Trinidad, on 2015-April-03, 09:27, said:

Again, trying to find a card in your hand is a bridge reason. No foul. Or would you want to force West to revoke?

That then becomes the standard response to the TD in Holland for someone who hesitates with a singleton. "It was tucked away among the suit of the same colour, and I took quite a while to find it, guv". The person could have known that mis-sorting his hand could create a BIT and he could have known that this BIT could damage the opponents, and he did not exercise enough care to avoid mis-sorting his hand when he was a defender. There is no need to call someone who tries the ruse a cheat, we just rule on the basis that he could be a Probst cheat.

You are confusing two things here: facts and self serving statements.

In your post you stated for a fact that the defender couldn't find the card. If you state that this is a fact, I will take it as a fact and answer accordingly: Finding a card is a bridge reason. End of case.

Your Dutch player who hesitates with a singleton and claims that he couldn't find the card is merely making a statement. It is evidence, but that doesn't make it a fact. A TD is supposed to establish the facts first and then rule. So the Dutch TD might ask the other players whether they noticed the player searching through his cards. If they did, then he might consider it a fact that the player couldn't find the card and rule on that basis. If they didn't but only noticed him thinking, then he will probably conclude that there is little basis to believe the defender's statement and he will rule just like any other hesitation-with-a-singleton ruling.

Rik

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 16:47, said:

However, the quick gulp was clearly after the jack of spades had been led and would have extended the BIT. There was no bridge reason for the quick gulp. West could have put down the pint "in the same movement" and played his card.

If West really wanted to disguise his thinking time, wouldn't he have taken a slow gulp rather than a quick one?

If the lead was actually at about the same time as West picked up his glass, I'm even more inclined to rule against SB. West couldn't know the precise moment that SB would have led, so picking up his glass at the same time is a total coincidence. There's no way he could have known that starting to drink at that precise moment could work to his advantage.

SB would have a better case if West had picked up his drink after the lead.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-04, 04:55, said:

So the Dutch TD might ask the other players whether they noticed the player searching through his cards. If they did, then he might consider it a fact that the player couldn't find the card and rule on that basis.

I would find it impossible to distinguish between a player looking at his cards for long enough to see if he had one of the suit led, or looking at his cards for long enough to give the false impression that he had a choice. Taking more than a normal time to find a card of the suit led is a bridge reason, but simulating a choice is normally dealt with appropriately under "failing to exercise sufficient care to play in tempo in a sensitive situation". In football, a player often claims he slipped, but still gets booked for diving.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-April-05, 15:59, said:

If the lead was actually at about the same time as West picked up his glass, I'm even more inclined to rule against SB. West couldn't know the precise moment that SB would have led, so picking up his glass at the same time is a total coincidence. There's no way he could have known that starting to drink at that precise moment could work to his advantage.

West would have known that South was about to play something, as he would have seen South commence the action of leading, which involves a movement of the right hand towards his cards, giving West time to start picking up his drink if he chose, if we believe SB's version. He would also know that South could well have a trump guess. I do not think he is carefully avoiding a BIT if he picks up his pint at the start of trick two in a slam where South may well have a critical guess; why not wait until he has to make a discard, when a BIT will not matter? And a quick gulp would be more than enough time to decide to cover or not to cover with Qx, and obviously more than enough time to play a singleton. In any case, we do not need to decide on West's motives for picking up his pint. He could have known that the most likely card South would be about to play was a trump and he knew he had a singleton. And picking up his drink was not a bridge reason.

How would you all rule if SB was West?

[sanst]

lamford, on 2015-April-05, 18:58, said:

How would you all rule if SB was West?

I'm not "all", so I don't know about others, but, as far as I'm acquainted with SB, I can't see him drinking at the table, let alone beer. SB will certainly never do anything that would compel another SB to call the director, so the question is completely rhetorical and can't be answered by a simple human like me.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2015-April-06, 04:36, said:

I'm not "all", so I don't know about others, but, as far as I'm acquainted with SB, I can't see him drinking at the table, let alone beer. SB will certainly never do anything that would compel another SB to call the director, so the question is completely rhetorical and can't be answered by a simple human like me.

Indeed, SB believes that drinking during the play is not carefully avoiding a potential BIT, so the scenario would not arise with SB as West. I continued my analysis at a Swiss Teams yesterday, and again found no example in 25 boards (I ignored the ones where my partner and I defended) of a drink-related BIT.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-April-05, 18:40, said:

I would find it impossible to distinguish between a player looking at his cards for long enough to see if he had one of the suit led, or looking at his cards for long enough to give the false impression that he had a choice.

You are trying to change the facts... again.

You wrote (amphasis mine):

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 06:35, said:

As South leads the ♠J at trick 2, West is pretty sure he began with a spade, but does not find one in his hand. After a careful search he finds the 4♠ among his clubs, where he has mis-sorted it, and he eventually plays it.

So, a Dutch TD would ask the other players whether they noticed "a careful search" or only "a pause to give the false impression that he had a choice". I would think that most players would be able to detect "a careful search", particularly when followed by the exclamation "Ahh! There it is!".

No matter how you turn this, you need to keep in mind that there is an enormous gap between your ingenious hypothetical cases and real life cases. In real life cases, the most difficult job for the TD is practically always to establish the facts. In order to establish the facts, the TD will need to investigate. He does that by asking smart questions, and by observing. Obviously, TDs -also Dutch TDs- come in all kinds. Each has their own style of investigating (and most have many styles, to be adapted to the players). Once the detective work is done, the ruling is usually straightforward.

Your hypothetical cases are entirely different. The facts are facts. You construct them to draw attention to an (alleged) ambiguity in the Law book. You ask forum members the question: "How should we interpret the Laws?". You cannot do that if there is any doubt about the facts.

Rik

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-April-06, 06:24, said:

I continued my analysis at a Swiss Teams yesterday, and again found no example in 25 boards (I ignored the ones where my partner and I defended) of a drink-related BIT.

Perhaps you had so many drink-related BITs that your observations were somewhat blurred?

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-06, 06:28, said:

You cannot do that if there is any doubt about the facts.

The facts in this case are at least partly in dispute, in that West thought SB was leading as West went to pick up his drink. SB thought West went to pick up his drink as SB was leading. I don't think this doubt about the facts matters, however. Even if we accept West's version, then I still think he did not take sufficient care. In my view, if you happen to pick up a drink during the play when it is your turn, and this causes a BIT, then that BIT is not for a bridge reason. In addition, he could have designated the card prior to putting down his drink!

And in the other scenario, it would not make a blind bit of difference to me if the person did conduct a careful search for his singleton, and then said something like, "there it is". That would be the putative action of the Probst cheat, and we rule against him because "he could have known". It will be unfair, of course, if he is telling the truth, but the solution is in his own hands. Sort more carefully. Black-red, black-red, taking note of the shapes on the cards, and arranging a visit to Specsavers if he still has trouble.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-06, 06:31, said:

Perhaps you had so many drink-related BITs that your observations were somewhat blurred?

Indeed that is possible. I was fined 1 VP for failure to enter 4 scores out of 7 in the Bridgemate in one match (!), going off to eat at the break and causing the organisers extra work. My excuse was too many drinks the previous day attending and celebrating Arsenal's football result, and also too many drinks at a friend's birthday party. So there are two possibilities; one is that there were one or more drink-related BITs and I missed them all. The other is that there was none. My partner, however, confirms that she did not notice any drink-related BITs either. So I conclude there was none, especially as they are as scarce as hen's teeth, and probably as scarce as mis-sorted singletons, the need to blow one's nose with a singleton, or even a sudden attack of cramp with singleton. Except among cheats, of course.