[paulg]

 c_corgi, on 2012-November-28, 13:52, said:

So North had UI that his partner didn't have the singleton? Perhaps he was constrained to defend as he did.

It was a trick one think and I doubt that anyone at the table would consider this to be UI, given the players involved.

[blackshoe]

Then, based on the evidence presented here, I would rule there was no BIT.

[Cascade]

There is no special trick one protection in the laws unless the regulating authority require a mandatory trick one pause.

[gnasher]

Regardless of which version of the facts is correct, it's inconceivable that declarer would consider ducking at trick one with ♥Axx and ♣x. Why would anyone consider a play that would trivially lead to two down when there is a legitimate chance to make?

Hence I think that North was misled, not by the pause, but by his own poor analysis, and I rule that the result stands.

[paulg]

Hopefully both declarer and North will both appreciate that they need to be a little more careful in the future. Unusual for such a good Laws lesson to come out of the trials and so timely as they were both selected.

[billw55]

It sounds like there was not agreement on facts at the table when this occurred. It is tough to make a sensible ruling in such a case.

In general I don't think 5 seconds is long enough to make any inference, particularly when south was also playing his card slowly (albeit for other reasons). Maybe west had an itchy shoulder and had put his cards down briefly; who knows? Add on the fact that the inference doesn't make sense (per gnasher; these are all "excellent players" per the OP) and I start to wonder if north was after a double shot.

[gordontd]

 billw55, on 2012-November-29, 07:45, said:

In general I don't think 5 seconds is long enough to make any inference,

To leave aside all other aspects of this thread, I have to disagree with this. When playing a card a five second pause is a very noticeable break in tempo.

[billw55]

 gordontd, on 2012-November-29, 08:14, said:

To leave aside all other aspects of this thread, I have to disagree with this. When playing a card a five second pause is a very noticeable break in tempo.

I would say it depends on the player's manner during the pause. If he is obviously paying attention and/or considering his play, then yes. Here there are screens, so north cannot see this, and I think there could be many non-bridge reasons for a short pause. Indeed, declarer told us as much in this thread, although apparently this was not made clear to the opponents or director at the time.

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2012-November-29, 08:14, said:

To leave aside all other aspects of this thread, I have to disagree with this. When playing a card a five second pause is a very noticeable break in tempo.

For a while, I tried to play "every" card in an even tempo (Law 73D) of 5 seconds. So for me, at that time, a five second pause was a very noticeable attempt to play in tempo.

I gave it up because I couldn't consistently keep it up.

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2012-November-28, 01:47, said:

Blackshoe is right, Declarer's hesitation before playing his singleton Ace is such a deliberate, premeditated and serious violation of Law 73D2 that I shall deny him the favour of a weighted score here (unless the other directors with whom I consult unanimously disagree and think that I am too strict).

That's illegal, ie against the Laws. Nothing in Law 12C1C says that if declarer has done it deliberately that affects the weighting. If you think declarer is totally unreasonable, or worse did it deliberately, then you give him an enormous PP, or report him to the authorities. But you do not give a weighting of zero to an action which could have occurred without the infraction.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-November-30, 14:11, said:

That's illegal, ie against the Laws. Nothing in Law 12C1C says that if declarer has done it deliberately that affects the weighting. If you think declarer is totally unreasonable, or worse did it deliberately, then you give him an enormous PP, or report him to the authorities. But you do not give a weighting of zero to an action which could have occurred without the infraction.

So you say that if a player (apparently) deliberately violates Law 73D2 and misleads an opponent into an unfortunate line of play the Director may not disregard this unfortunate line of play when deciding on the adjusted score to award?

I see nothing in Law 12C that prohibits the Director from doing just that? (Law 12C1{c} does not require weighting, it permits weighting.)

(I am fully aware that later information in this thread has indicated the possibility of medical excuses for what happened. This would of course influence my ruling in the actual case, but does not change my principal view of such situations.)

[bluejak]

The adjustment given on a hand is based on Law 12B1. Ignoring this Law because you don't like the player or think he Is a cheat or for any other reason is either incompetent or unprofessional.