[nige1]

lamford, on 2016-September-16, 08:18, said:

I don't think that the deception is the amount of thinking time, which might, as you say, be minimal. It is the false impression given that there was a change of card selection. So, if anyone says they pulled the wrong card and had to change it in this siuation, I would adjust, on the balance of probabilities, and quote Mandy Rice Davies: "Well he would [say that], wouldn't he?"

barmar, on 2016-September-16, 11:01, said:

You're essentially saying that all self-serving statements should be discounted, since that's what he would say regardless of whether it's true or not. I.e. everyone is a liar.

I agree with Lambert that self-serving statements should be taken for what they are -- and credence should vary with context and probability estimates.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-September-16, 14:14, said:

I agree with Lambert that self-serving statements should be taken for what they are -- and credence should vary with context and probability estimates.

And in this case, CC's explanation is quite credible. It should be, since SB was counting on it.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-September-17, 15:15, said:

And in this case, CC's explanation is quite credible. It should be, since SB was counting on it.

Should the director reward CC for the infractions to which he seems to have admitted?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-September-17, 15:15, said:

And in this case, CC's explanation is quite credible. It should be, since SB was counting on it.

We only have speculation, and hearsay evidence that SB was gloating about his ruse in the bar later, that SB induced a BIT. SB stated to the TD that his opponent deceived him.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2016-September-17, 15:55, said:

We only have speculation, and hearsay evidence that SB was gloating about his ruse in the bar later, that SB induced a BIT. SB stated to the TD that his opponent deceived him.

Was this more than 30 minutes after the end of the session?

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2016-September-17, 16:42, said:

Was this more than 30 minutes after the end of the session?

Of course. SB knew the correction period and the ruling was originally in his favour.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-September-17, 15:55, said:

We only have speculation, and hearsay evidence that SB was gloating about his ruse in the bar later, that SB induced a BIT. SB stated to the TD that his opponent deceived him.

Sounds self-serving to me. Hoist on his own petard!

[barmar]

Anyway, I disagree with SB's argument that a defender could have known that preparing his play to the likely next trick could result in fumbling that deceives declarer enough to cause him to guess wrong. The causal chain is just too tenuous for anyone to consider while they're planning their play. 73D1 says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side", but I don't think CC could know that this is such a situation. It seems like SB effectively considers that to be true all the time -- he's never failed to find a way to argue that an opponent's hitch occurred in a tempo-sensitive situation. But the Lawmakers couldn't have meant that, or they wouldn't have included the qualifier, they would just have said that you must always maintain steady tempo.

Basically, SB seems to use circular reasoning: since he claims he was misled, the opponent could have known that he would be misled, so he should get redress for the opponent's tempo break. But then what are we to make of the last sentence of this law, which says that inferences are drawn at your own risk? If you can always claim that the opponent could have known of the effect of his tempo break, where's the risk?

All these qualifiers in the Law are why I think it was never intended to be interpreted as liberally as SB regularly does. Bridge players aren't expected to be robotic.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-September-18, 13:36, said:

But the Lawmakers couldn't have meant that, or they wouldn't have included the qualifier, they would just have said that you must always maintain steady tempo.

I think the particularly sensitive situations the Lawmamkers might have in mind include when declarer leads small towards KJ(x) or leads the jack towards A(K)xx. The qualifier suggests that a hitch when declarer leads low towards AKQ tripleton is unlikely to deceive, so I do not agree with your argument.

[nige1]

Unless the director is a telepath, he isn't privy to SB's thoughts. Unless clairvoyant, he won't anticipate SB's bar boast. He avoids prejudgement arising from past unproven suspicions. He relies on information gleaned at the table.

SB's indiscretions, elsewhere, might prompt club-members to consider expulsion. But that's a different matter.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2016-September-20, 06:28, said:

SB's indiscretions, elsewhere, might prompt club-members to consider expulsion. But that's a different matter.

They did consider it, but there have been, as you say, unproven suspicions, based on the sheer volume of director calls, and the committee decided not to propose expulsion.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-September-20, 05:58, said:

I think the particularly sensitive situations the Lawmamkers might have in mind include when declarer leads small towards KJ(x) or leads the jack towards A(K)xx. The qualifier suggests that a hitch when declarer leads low towards AKQ tripleton is unlikely to deceive, so I do not agree with your argument.

But the irregularity happened before declarer led towards the KJ.

Are you saying that the simple existence of that combination in dummy means that CC has to be particularly careful on every trick, in case declarer switches to a club, so he can play in tempo on the club trick?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-September-20, 09:02, said:

But the irregularity happened before declarer led towards the KJ.

Are you saying that the simple existence of that combination in dummy means that CC has to be particularly careful on every trick, in case declarer switches to a club, so he can play in tempo on the club trick?

No, the irregularity happened at the same time as declarer led towards the KJ but CC was already expecting the last trump to be drawn. The acid test is whether he could have been aware that playing out of tempo on a club lead could damage the non-offender ...

[manudude03]

If 73D1 was to be taken as literally as you suggest, there would be no reason at all to include 73D2. 73D2 says that a player may not attempt to deceive declarer by the manner of which the card is played (whether it be by the speed of the card or a gesture). To attempt suggests to deliberately try to deceive, which would mean that in this case, the defender would have to be thinking "if I wait a few seconds before playing low, declarer will likely play me for the ace".

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2016-September-20, 17:41, said:

If 73D1 was to be taken as literally as you suggest, there would be no reason at all to include 73D2. 73D2 says that a player may not attempt to deceive declarer by the manner of which the card is played (whether it be by the speed of the card or a gesture). To attempt suggests to deliberately try to deceive, which would mean that in this case, the defender would have to be thinking "if I wait a few seconds before playing low, declarer will likely play me for the ace".

The whole purpose of Law 23 is that we do not need to decide whether there was a deliberate attempt to deceive. We have (in Law 73): "<snip> players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side <snip>" This is clearly a situation where a variation (seeming to change a card either accidentally or intentionally, it matters not) may work to the benefit of their side. So we adjust. As the TD did.

[barmar]

I have another issue with this. SB is equating fumbling with the cards with having a problem deciding which card to play. If someone fumbles, it seems far more likely that he pulled the wrong card, not that he had a decision and changed his mind.

[manudude03]

lamford, on 2016-September-21, 08:24, said:

The whole purpose of Law 23 is that we do not need to decide whether there was a deliberate attempt to deceive. We have: "<snip> players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side <snip>" This is clearly a situation where a variation (seeming to change a card either accidentally or intentionally, it matters not) may work to the benefit of their side. So we adjust. As the TD did.

You are missing my point, 73D2 would not be there at all unless there could be a situation where you could violate it without also violating 73D1 (noting that 73D2 gives hesitancy as an example). Also, 73D1 says players should be particularly careful implying that it is rarely punished. I did say in my initial reply that I would remind West about keeping tempo in situations like this, but I wouldn't adjust.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2016-September-21, 09:17, said:

You are missing my point, 73D2 would not be there at all unless there could be a situation where you could violate it without also violating 73D1 (noting that 73D2 gives hesitancy as an example). Also, 73D1 says players should be particularly careful implying that it is rarely punished. I did say in my initial reply that I would remind West about keeping tempo in situations like this, but I wouldn't adjust.

I wouldn't rule out verbosity in the laws for the sake of emphasis. The problem with reminding West without adjusting is that there will be a different TD and different club next time. It is standard to adjust here, although other TDs might offer a view of whether they do. And "should" does not mean there is no infraction. It just means that one would not give a PP.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-September-21, 08:48, said:

I have another issue with this. SB is equating fumbling with the cards with having a problem deciding which card to play. If someone fumbles, it seems far more likely that he pulled the wrong card, not that he had a decision and changed his mind.

It could be either. I don't know how you can tell.

[barmar]

manudude03, on 2016-September-21, 09:17, said:

Also, 73D1 says players should be particularly careful implying that it is rarely punished.

A score adjustment is not a punishment, it's simply redressinig the damage that was caused by the irregularity. The punishment that's mentioned in the "should" vs. "must" distinction refers to procedural penalties, which may be assessed independent of adjustments.