[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-01, 02:25, said:

So, your statement that the correct procedure is to summon the TD is wrong. The TD only needs to be summoned if the LOOT is not treated as a correct lead.

And let's be honest, most people don't call the director even then; they use request that the lead be made from the correct hand.

I have been thinking about when the lead from the wrong may drop or pick up a crucial card, who should object to the lead -- the player with the card or the one without it? I am obviously assuming that this will not happen often enough for the opponents to notice your strategy.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-April-30, 14:59, said:

Law 53A protects the inattentive player who just follows suit to a lead out of turn from his RHO, but it also indicates that the correct procedure with leads out of turn is to summon the Director.

campboy, on 2015-April-30, 15:24, said:

No it doesn't. The Director is only mentioned in the part dealing with the lead not being accepted. So it merely indicates that the correct procedure with a lead out of turn that you don't want to accept is to call the Director.

Trinidad, on 2015-May-01, 02:25, said:

Nowhere does law 53A indicate that the correct procedure is to summon the TD. Or do you have another law book then the one on the WBF website?

So, if you are going to accept the LOOT, you do not need to call the TD (or even draw attention to the irregularity). It is entirely correct procedure to play to the trick (as North did here). That is not merely "protecting an inattentive North". It gives North an option: He may treat the LOOT as a correct lead. And you do not need to call the TD for a correct lead.

So, your statement that the correct procedure is to summon the TD is wrong. The TD only needs to be summoned if the LOOT is not treated as a correct lead.

Rik

Law 53A clearly accepts a lead out of turn by just following suit and thus protects the inattentive player doing so by not making it an irregularity to not calling the Director and ask for a ruling in this situation.

But Law 53A also clearly allows this player to call the Director and then select the option to accept the lead out of turn. This simply confirms the general rule in

Law 9 B 1 c said:

Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.

as applicable also in this situation.

And if he is in doubt whether or not to accept the lead out of turn and needs time to consider this then it is in his own interest with a singleton in the suit led to call the Director so that it will be clear that he hesitated for that reason and not illegally with a singleton.

In the OP situation I would rule that he deliberately hesitated for no acceptable reason with a singleton in the suit led.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 04:02, said:

Law 53A clearly accepts a lead out of turn by just following suit and thus protects the inattentive player doing so by not making it an irregularity to not calling the Director and ask for a ruling in this situation.

NO. Law 53A goes much further than that. It gives the NOS the option to act as if nothing happened. (He "may treat the LOOT as a correct lead".)

pran, on 2015-May-01, 04:02, said:

But Law 53A also clearly allows this player to call the Director and then select the option to accept the lead out of turn.

Of course, the player can call the TD. I never said he couldn't. You claimed the only correct procedure would be to call the TD. That claim is incorrect. It is entirely correct procedure to treat the LOOT as a correct lead and play to the trick. (Law 53A)

pran, on 2015-May-01, 04:02, said:

And if he is in doubt whether or not to accept the lead out of turn and needs time to consider this then it is in his own interest with a singleton in the suit led to call the Director so that it will be clear that he hesitated for that reason and not illegally with a singleton.

Why? Is there any obligation for a player to tell his opponent what he was thinking about? The only requirement is that he had a bridge reason.

And, for the record, it is NOT illegal to hesitate with a singleton. (Or, if you think it is, please quote the relevant law.)

It is illegal to hesitate when you don't have a bridge reason for your hesitation. That is a big difference.

Normally that makes it illegal to hesitate with a singleton because you don't have a bridge reason to think when there is only one action you could take (play your singleton).

But this isn't a normal case and the big difference becomes very relevant. In this case, though North has a singleton, there are several actions he can take. One of these actions (giving partner the opportunity to draw attention to the irregularity) can in itself be considered a hesitation.

So, North has a bridge reason to think whether he should:

• play the Q
  
• draw attention to the irregularity and call the TD
  
• wait a while to give partner the opportunity to draw attention to the irregularity (and when partner doesn't do anything choose 1. or 2.)

And since he has a bridge reason and bridge is a thinking game, North has simple not committed any irregularity. It would be horrible to adjust the score in favor of EW if neither North nor South has committed an irregularity.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-01, 04:56, said:

[...]
And, for the record, it is NOT illegal to hesitate with a singleton. (Or, if you think it is, please quote the relevant law.)
[...]
Rik

Law 73 D 2 said:

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

(My enhancements.)

So if you ever happens to hesitate with a singleton you had better:
either call the Director (for cause)
or immediately with your eventual play make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about").

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 07:39, said:

So if you ever happens to hesitate with a singleton you had better:
either call the Director (for cause)
or immediately with your eventual play make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about").

It's used as an example rather than being explicitly specified as a rule, and of course you can hesitate with a singleton in some circumstances, trick 1 after declarer plays rapidly from dummy being the obvious one, I would view this case as another exception.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-April-30, 07:16, said:

EW lost their appeal, but won back their deposit.

I would not have returned their deposit, and would have considered a PP to West for leading from the wrong hand in a situation where he wanted to try to smoke out a singleton honour. Presumably North pre-empted in clubs, and the normal line was to cash the ace and finesse. The Probst cheat would start the suit from the wrong hand, and try to get redress when North breaks tempo with a singleton honour.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2015-April-29, 09:49, said:

Oops! Could we have a facility to downvote one's own posts? (I'm happy not be able to upvote them!)

You could give yourself a PP for a breach of 74B1 ...

[VixTD]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 07:39, said:

So if you ever happens to hesitate with a singleton you had better:
either call the Director (for cause)
or immediately with your eventual play make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about").

No, just make sure you have a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 07:39, said:

So if you ever happens to hesitate with a singleton you had better:
either call the Director (for cause)
or immediately with your eventual play make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about").

You need to read all the enhancements you made to law 73D2, particularly the one that is most relevant:

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by bla, bla, bla (bla bla singleton)

Do you have any evidence (at all) that North was attempting to mislead an opponent? Or might it just be that North, despite his singleton, had a list of excellent bridge reasons to think what he c/w/should do? I would say the latter and that North did have quite a bit to think about.

In this situation, your suggestion to "make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about")" is much closer to a violation of law 73D2 (very first example in the long list):

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark []

.
North did have a lot to think about and if he would say he didn't, he would be lying. If declarer says that he concluded from such a remark that accepting the LOOT must have been a no-brainer for North, and that North, hence, must have been very happy with the LOOT, I will certainly grant him that he was misled by North's remark.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-01, 12:06, said:

You need to read all the enhancements you made to law 73D2, particularly the one that is most relevant:

Do you have any evidence (at all) that North was attempting to mislead an opponent? Or might it just be that North, despite his singleton, had a list of excellent bridge reasons to think what he c/w/should do? I would say the latter and that North did have quite a bit to think about.

In this situation, your suggestion to "make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about")" is much closer to a violation of law 73D2 (very first example in the long list):

.
North did have a lot to think about and if he would say he didn't, he would be lying. If declarer says that he concluded from such a remark that accepting the LOOT must have been a no-brainer for North, and that North, hence, must have been very happy with the LOOT, I will certainly grant him that he was misled by North's remark.

Rik

By all means show us a list of all the "problems" North had to think about and which could not as well be considered after he had played his singleton.

And if this list includes how he should handle the lead out of turn do not forget:

Law 10A said:

The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive – see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative.

which (among other things) means that considering whether or not to call the Director is not a valid bridge reason for hesitating with a singleton.

[blackshoe]

Acceptance of an insufficient bid is not a rectification.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-01, 13:53, said:

Acceptance of an insufficient bid is not a rectification.

This is the key. A right is not a rectification, and to deny an opponent a bit of time to consider whether to exercise that right is wrong.

[pran]

I don't see the relevance of introducing insufficient bids in this thread.

However, anything else than accepting the lead out of turn is a rectification and if the offender's LHO needs time to decide whether or not to accept a lead out of turn he had better make that clear and not just hesitate his play of a singleton.

I am tired of all the excuses that have been introduced on behalf of a player who apparently has violated Law 73D2 by a significant hesitation before playing his singleton in the suit led (except of course during trick 1).

If I were to be called to a table where this had happened and had been offered any of the inventive excuses presented here I would have smiled and asked if he could not do better than that. Then I would go on investigating if the hesitation in my opinion had damaged opponents.

I am not interested in whether he intended to mislead his opponents, the fact is that he most likely did.


Many years ago I read a story where a declarer's LHO hesitated before following suit with a small card. Declarer naturally tried the finnessee in Dummy with success. The player then astonished asked his partner (RHO) why he didn't win the trick with his key card. RHO (who indeed had that card) replied: "Oh, I was sure you had it!"

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 15:20, said:

I don't see the relevance of introducing insufficient bids in this thread.

However, anything else than accepting the lead out of turn is a rectification and if the offender's LHO needs time to decide whether or not to accept a lead out of turn he had better make that clear and not just hesitate his play of a singleton.

I am tired of all the excuses that have been introduced on behalf of a player who apparently has violated Law 73D2 by a significant hesitation before playing his singleton in the suit led (except of course during trick 1).

If I were to be called to a table where this had happened and had been offered any of the inventive excuses presented here I would have smiled and asked if he could not do better than that. Then I would go on investigating if the hesitation in my opinion had damaged opponents.

I am not interested in whether he intended to mislead his opponents, the fact is that he most likely did.


Many years ago I read a story where a declarer's LHO hesitated before following suit with a small card. Declarer naturally tried the finnessee in Dummy with success. The player then astonished asked his partner (RHO) why he didn't win the trick with his key card. RHO (who indeed had that card) replied: "Oh, I was sure you had it!"

Heard that story. Kaplan, I think. As for the rest, I would not go into any ruling situation with the preconceived notion that one side or the other has done something wrong. I would not allow being "tired of excuses" to color my ruling. I would investigate, and apply the law. As for the instant case, Law 73D2 says "a player may not attempt to mislead an opponent…" It is clear to me that, singleton or not, the player concerned did not attempt to mislead, and so is not guilty of having violated Law 73D2.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 15:20, said:

However, anything else than accepting the lead out of turn is a rectification and if the offender's LHO needs time to decide whether or not to accept a lead out of turn he had better make that clear..

Why? Is there any law that forces North to tell the table what bridge reason he had to think?

pran, on 2015-May-01, 15:20, said:

... and not just hesitate his play of a singleton.

You don't have any evidence that North hesitated his play of a singleton, so please stop saying he did. He thought what to do about the LOOT.

His excellent bridge reasons, as I have said before, are that he needs to choose whether he would:

• treat the LOOT as a correct lead
  
• wait for his partner to decide something
  
• call the TD

You make it perfectly clear that in addition to these, North probably needs some time to reflect on what his rights and obligations are. I mean, if the BBF laws forum members cannot agree on what North's rights and obligations are, then how is North supposed to know that in a fraction of a second?

Seen in this light, it seems like a miracle that North was able to make his decisions within a few seconds, rather than a few days of internet discussion.

Rik

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-01, 15:20, said:

I am not interested in whether he intended to mislead his opponents, the fact is that he most likely did.

You have quoted law 73D2 a few times, but you fail to read it.

Of course, West was misled. Everybody here believes West's claim that North's short pause misled him into believing that North could not have a singleton queen. (Because everybody recognizes that West failed to realize that his LOOT caused the pause.)

But whether West was misled is utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether North attempted to mislead West. And there is zero evidence for that because North had good bridge reasons to think.

Rik

[gnasher]

FWIW I've had almost exactly this situation when playing against a member of the WBFLC, and I did exactly as North did - I thought about whether to accept the lead, decided I did want to, and then followed suit with my singleton. The WBFLC member thought that was fine.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-02, 02:48, said:

You have quoted law 73D2 a few times, but you fail to read it.

Of course, West was misled. Everybody here believes West's claim that North's short pause misled him into believing that North could not have a singleton queen. (Because everybody recognizes that West failed to realize that his LOOT caused the pause.)

But whether West was misled is utterly irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether North attempted to mislead West. And there is zero evidence for that because North had good bridge reasons to think.

Rik

We apparently live in different cultures as to what we consider fair play and gentlemanlike behaviour. (And the laws stress the importance of behaving like Gentlemen/Ladies.)

Let me give you another BIT example from TD Candidates training commonly used for years in Norway.

Declarer leads towards a tenace in Dummy and his LHO hesitates with just two small Cards (doubleton).

His "excuse" afterwards is that he was considering whether to give a true or a false (odd/even) count signal with his discard.

LHO shall never be heard with this "excuse" because he shall be aware in advance that his hesitation will most likely mislead Declarer! (He should foresee the situation and make up his mind well before so that he could discard in normal tempo.)

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-02, 04:25, said:

We apparently live in different cultures as to what we consider fair play and gentlemanlike behaviour. (And the laws stress the importance of behaving like Gentlemen/Ladies.)

Let me give you another BIT example from TD Candidates training commonly used for years in Norway.

Declarer leads towards a tenace in Dummy and his LHO hesitates with just two small Cards (doubleton).

His "excuse" afterwards is that he was considering whether to give a true or a false (odd/even) count signal with his discard.

LHO shall never be heard with this "excuse" because he shall be aware in advance that his hesitation will most likely mislead Declarer! (He should foresee the situation and make up his mind well before so that he could discard in normal tempo.)

Please refrain from references to gentleman like behavior. It is so ... ungentlemanly.

To answer your question: This is a standard example. The hesitation with a small doubleton is considered an attempt to mislead.

Why?

Because any player with a tiny bit of experience will know in a fraction of a second (and probably already before the opponent led to the trick) which of the two cards he should play. So, having to decide which of the two small cards to play is not a valid bridge reason to think. It is a situation that comes up routinely (many times per club night) and will not truly present any difficulty.

Look how big the difference with this situation is:

• Something unexpected happens. North needs to make a decision half a trick earlier than he expected.
  
• North ends up in a non-routine situation.
  
• North does have a genuine decision to make. He is suddenly presented with an array of new options.
  
• His choice is not between two trivial options (play the 6 or the 2), he has several options. In some options, he will have additional options after he has chosen his initial option.
  
• In fact, North might already need time to realize how many options he actually has!
  
• He needs to realize his legal obligations and his legal opportunities.
  
• Finally, he needs to answer the question: "What am I going to do?"

In your small doubleton example, the player doesn't have a genuine decision to make. He has no valid bridge reason to think.
In the actual case, North does have a genuine (and, I must say, pretty complex) decision to make. That is a very valid bridge reason to think.

Let me ask you three simple questions:
You are defending. You won your own opening lead. You think for a while and decide to continue the suit. As expected, this is ruffed in dummy.
Declarer leads a small heart from his hand.

• What are your options?
  
• Which one do you choose?
  
• How much time does it take you to answer questions 1 and 2?

I would think that the sum (your answer to question 3 + the time you need to realize that declarer led from the wrong hand) is at least "a few seconds". This is the time North needed, not time that he hesitated.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-02, 06:30, said:

[..]
Let me ask you three simple questions:
You are defending. You won your own opening lead. You think for a while and decide to continue the suit. As expected, this is ruffed in dummy.
Declarer leads a small heart from his hand.

• What are your options?
  
• Which one do you choose?
  
• How much time does it take you to answer questions 1 and 2?

I would think that the sum (your answer to question 3 + the time you need to realize that declarer led from the wrong hand) is at least "a few seconds". This is the time North needed, not time that he hesitated.

Rik

I have been in this or equivalent situations several times and can truly answer that my split second reaction is "You are in Dummy".