[mycroft]

Isn't it normal to consume the drink at the table, and call "Director" "Bartender, please!" as required to replenish it?

It was at my club, at least.

It is truly unfortunate that none of the clubs I now direct at or play at has a liquor license...

(Cue story of pair from out-of-town, who were shocked at the call for "Bartender", when "the Director should be given appropriate respect". To which the response was "yes, but the Director asked us to do that, so he doesn't arrive at the table, Lawbook in hand, only to find the problem was an acute alcohol deficiency" (and a smile from the TD BT.))

[jfnrl]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 05:26, said:

Under which Law?

1st question : in France, yes
2nd question : it is a matter of regulation

[Aardv]

lamford, on 2015-April-02, 04:49, said:

...How do you rule?

I award SB a life ban, under Laws 91 and 94.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-April-02, 13:16, said:

Nonsense. It is normal when you have a drink to consume it at the table and use the breaks between hands to replenish it.

I agree that it is invariably consumed at the table, but I cannot recall someone breaking tempo as a defender just to have a drink. Thinking back to occasional times I have monitored a match at the Lederer, I can never recall a BIT by someone who is having a drink when it is their turn to play as a defender. I have seen people having a drink when it is their turn to lead, however. A BIT is a BIT, for whatever reason.

[blackshoe]

A BIT is a BIT, but that doesn't mean it necessarily conveys UI.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-02, 21:24, said:

A BIT is a BIT, but that doesn't mean it necessarily conveys UI.

I agree. If that were the issue, I would not adjust. However UI is not relevant. What SB claims is (my emphasis):
73F: "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)."

The violation claimed by SB was:
D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 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.

Note the term "bridge reason" in 73F. Picking up a pint of beer, gulping some of its contents, and then putting it down may well be a reason for the lack of steady tempo, but it is not a bridge reason, let alone a demonstrable one. So we adjust. If the person hesitated with a singleton because his mind wandered to whether he had told someone about a bridge match the following day, that would be more of a bridge reason, but I think we would still adjust.

[Trinidad]

What BIT?!?

There is no indication in the OP that West was deviating from the tempo that he normally uses when he is drinking and playing...

For all his actions he had a bridge reason:

To play a card, he needs to detach it from his hand.
To detach the card from his hand, he needs to free up the hand with the glass.
To free up the hand with the glass, he needs to put the glass down. (Or, alternatively, empty the glass and hold the glass with his teeth.)

So, if one claims that there was a variation from the normal tempo (when West is not drinking, if that can be considered "normal") then there was a bridge reason for this variation.

_________________

In the very next round, the very same board is played again. The auction and start of the play are the same. As South leads the ♠J at trick 2, West is trying to play the ♠4, but there seems to be a sticky beer stain on it. The ♠4 is stuck to some other cards and West needs to put his cards down to separate the ♠4 from his hand. South finesses, goes down and calls the TD. How do you rule?

Rik

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 02:01, said:

I agree. If that were the issue, I would not adjust. However UI is not relevant. What SB claims is (my emphasis):
73F: "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)."

The violation claimed by SB was:
D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 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.

Note the term "bridge reason" in 73F. Picking up a pint of beer, gulping some of its contents, and then putting it down may well be a reason for the lack of steady tempo, but it is not a bridge reason, let alone a demonstrable one. So we adjust. If the person hesitated with a singleton because his mind wandered to whether he had told someone about a bridge match the following day, that would be more of a bridge reason, but I think we would still adjust.

The alleged violation is "failing to be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of his side". As was already pointed out in post no 7

Lanor Fow said:

Everyone at the table can see that the BIT is caused by the drink, not by anything else, and so given this cannot confuse declarer, it can't work to the benefit of the OS.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-April-03, 05:09

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-April-03, 05:07, said:

As was already pointed out in post no 7

It was not pointed out. It was an opinion of the person who posted, not shared by me. My opinion is that an unscrupulous West could have had Qx of spades and deliberately timed the pick-up of his drink to gain extra thinking time to decide between the putative South holdings of J9xxx and AJTxx. This was borne out by my observations of people with drinks the following day, meticulously recording how often they broke tempo during the play to drink - not once. Bayes' theorem suggests that someone picking up their pint at just the moment SB had a crucial trump guess is unlikely to be coincidence. But we do not need to decide what the cause of the BIT was; only that it was for a non-bridge reason in a situation where one needs to show extra care. In addition, 73D says "may work" rather than "did work", so it is only necessary that the BIT might deceive, and that the TD is satisfied that declarer drew a false inference.

If West had just been day-dreaming for ten seconds and said, before following, "Sorry. I was thinking about the last hand", everyone at the table would be aware of the putative reason for the BIT. Would you then adjust?

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 06:19, said:

It was not pointed out. It was an opinion of the person who posted, not shared by me.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-03, 04:55, said:

In the very next round, the very same board is played again. The auction and start of the play are the same. As South leads the ♠J at trick 2, West is trying to play the ♠4, but there seems to be a sticky beer stain on it. The ♠4 is stuck to some other cards and West needs to put his cards down to separate the ♠4 from his hand. South finesses, goes down and calls the TD. How do you rule?

I would inspect West's cards and if the four of spades did have a beer stain on it, and was capable of sticking to neighbouring cards, I would rule in the same way as if the board had been fouled by the organisers, which is normally average plus for both sides or equivalent. Although the laws do not specify it, there must be an assumption that the cards do not stick to each other. How would you rule?

Try another scenario. The auction and start of the play are the same. 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. South finesses, goes down and calls the TD. How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

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. Also, given his knowledge of the laws, if he ever commits an infraction, he should receive a PP, because he for damn sure knows better than to do that. On the whole, though, I like Aardv's solution to the problem.

[Trinidad]

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

Try another scenario. The auction and start of the play are the same. 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. South finesses, goes down and calls the TD. How do you rule?

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

Rik

[sanst]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 02:01, said:

I agree. If that were the issue, I would not adjust. However UI is not relevant. What SB claims is (my emphasis):
73F: "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)."

The violation claimed by SB was:
D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 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.

Note the term "bridge reason" in 73F. Picking up a pint of beer, gulping some of its contents, and then putting it down may well be a reason for the lack of steady tempo, but it is not a bridge reason, let alone a demonstrable one. So we adjust. If the person hesitated with a singleton because his mind wandered to whether he had told someone about a bridge match the following day, that would be more of a bridge reason, but I think we would still adjust.

So, if west has had to blow his nose urgently, which certainly has nothing to do with bridge, SB had also claimed to be disadvantaged? I'm just wondering wether there are still enough members left in this well known club to play a decent game. I would certainly quit before I become abusive or worse when SB is on his hobby horse again.

[Echognome]

I think people are just offended that they think SB is trying one on. I would want to understand what happened further before I made any decisions. To me these two scenarios are completely different.

Scenario A - The person had either picked up his glass to drink or began the act of picking up his drink before the trick was lead. Very closely related would be picking up his drink after the card had been lead, but not noticing the card had been lead before beginning to pick up his drink.

Scenario B - The person looked at the lead, then picked up his drink. Then decided to follow suit.

The point is shouldn't we establish whether we view the drinking of the beer as a stall tactic or not? If the act appeared to be to create a BIT, then I think the ruling should follow the "could have known" section of the regulations. If the act appeared to be just a normal drinking of a beer, then I think the ruling should be no BIT.

I don't know about others, but I have had someone BIT without a bridge reason done to me and it's not a pleasant experience. What made it tolerable was that I got a ruling in my favor on the actual occasion. However, it wasn't pleasant that it was done in the first place.

It probably comes down to a needing to be there and hearing from all of the players to make a decision, but I wouldn't conclude on the basis of the facts as presented that it was one way or another.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-April-03, 06:19, said:

It was not pointed out. It was an opinion of the person who posted, not shared by me.

Oh, sorry. When you didn't make a series of posts explaining why you disagreed, I assumed that meant either you hadn't seen the post or you had nothing to offer in the way of rebuttal.

Just to confirm that I've understood, is this what you're saying:
(1) West had picked up his drink before declarer led to the trick.
(2) Declarer was aware of this.
(3) Declarer believed that West would only drink during the hand if he had ♠Q, as part of an attempt to conceal the need to think.
(4) Hence declarer inferred that West had the queen.
(5) West had not taken particular care to avoid this occurring.

[Echognome]

gnasher, on 2015-April-03, 11:44, said:

Oh, sorry. When you didn't make a series of posts explaining why you disagreed, I assumed that meant either you hadn't seen the post or you had nothing to offer in the way of rebuttal.

Just to confirm that I've understood, is this what you're saying:
(1) West had picked up his drink before declarer led to the trick.
(2) Declarer was aware of this.
(3) Declarer believed that West would only drink during the hand if he had ♠Q, as part of an attempt to conceal the need to think.
(4) Hence declarer inferred that West had the queen.
(5) West had not taken particular care to avoid this occurring.

Not that I want to be involved in this part of the conversation, but if your fact #1 is true, per my last post, I wouldn't view this as a BIT.

The only thing I would view as a BIT is seeing the lead, maybe staring at it for a second, then picking up a drink and drinking before leading.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-April-03, 11:44, said:

Just to confirm that I've understood, is this what you're saying:
(1) West had picked up his drink before declarer led to the trick.

I did not say that. The OP included: "West led the jack of diamonds won by South who thought for 30 seconds or so before leading the jack of spades. West, who had just picked up his pint, had a quick gulp and then put it down and played low." (my added emphasis)

The above are the facts as reported to me by the North London club. It would appear that the leading of the jack of spades and the picking up of the pint were approximately at the same time. Assuming the time taken to transfer the jack of spades from SB's hand to the table was one second, West started to pick up his pint at the same time as the card was withdrawn, we will say. West thought SB went to lead as he was picking up the pint. SB thought West went to pick up the pint as South led. 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. The TD has to decide on the balance of probabilities whether West could have been aware that his BIT would damage the other side, as neither he nor I reached any of the conclusions you suggest I am reaching.

[lamford]

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.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2015-April-03, 09:34, said:

So, if west has had to blow his nose urgently, which certainly has nothing to do with bridge, SB had also claimed to be disadvantaged? I'm just wondering wether there are still enough members left in this well known club to play a decent game. I would certainly quit before I become abusive or worse when SB is on his hobby horse again.

Again I would be very sceptical of someone who claimed he had to blow his nose urgently when breaking tempo with a singleton. If the facts were just that West thought for five seconds and then played his singleton, we would impose a PP on West. The Probst cheat is bound to fabricate some reason for the BIT. If West had started to blow his nose, or started to drink from his pint, before the jack of spades was led, that would be different. And SB would be quite happy if you quit bridge if your ingenious "nose-blowing-bit" was ruled against.