[lamford]

---

This board, 14 of the penultimate set in the Seniors Camrose, caused some ill-feeling. SB, representing one of the home countries (he will not say which), led the six of diamonds against North's pushy game. Declarer won with the king and led a spade towards South. SB took maybe three or four seconds to play the nine with East, reverse Smith asking for a switch. Declarer rose with the king and went one down when West won with the ace and returned a diamond.

North was unhappy and called for a ruling, but SB had his "speech" ready. "I fully acknowledge the break in tempo", he began truthfully, "and I can quite accept that North would and did draw a false inference from this. However Law 73E2 states:"

"If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score."

"I have stressed the words (in bold - Ed)", he continued. "When declarer did not play on clubs, it was clear to me that he had four or five club tricks, two diamonds and either the ace or king of hearts. The danger situation was as I foresaw, that declarer had five club tricks and a second diamond would be too slow. I therefore Smithed in spades, to ask for a switch, which would obviously be in hearts." He paused for breath. "It is off now even if declarer gets the spades right, as I would unblock the jack of hearts on the heart return if North rose, or switch back to spades if he didn't. Even I took three or four seconds to work all this out".

"I also note that the EBU White Book does not regard deciding whether to Smith Peter as a 'bridge reason' for a BIT", he ranted on. "That is illegal, and Law 73E2 is very clear that an adjustment is only permitted if there is no demonstrable bridge reason and there clearly was here." He concluded: "In any case there is no damage as the contract is one off anyway"

North was still unhappy. "If your nine of spades asked for a switch, why did your partner continue diamonds?"

"He had a senior moment", replied SB. "Fortunately it only cost the second undertrick. He had too much of the excellent Secretary Bird Sauvignon Blanc last night. I can recommend it: http://thewinestatio...gnon-blanc.html But not during the Seniles Camrose."

How do you rule?

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2018-May-22, 07:19, said:

"I also note that the EBU White Book does not regard deciding whether to Smith Peter as a 'bridge reason' for a BIT", he ranted on. "That is illegal, and Law 73E2 is very clear that an adjustment is only permitted if there is no demonstrable bridge reason and there clearly was here." He concluded: "In any case there is no damage as the contract is one off anyway"

The White Book does not go into much detail about what constitutes a "bridge reason". 8.73.1 says that deciding whether to signal with 2 small cards is not usually considered a demonstrable bridge reason. Can you really generalize that to mean that deciding whether to Smith is also not a bridge reason?

However, leading towards a KJ is one of the most tempo-sensitive situations in bridge, so the requirement to maintain consistent tempo there really needs to be enforced.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2018-May-22, 08:38, said:

However, leading towards a KJ is one of the most tempo-sensitive situations in bridge, so the requirement to maintain consistent tempo there really needs to be enforced.

North suggested that, but SB responded: "73D1 states: <snip>Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk." He also pointed out "North had asked at the start of the round whether EW were playing Smith, and he should have known that this was a Smith situation, and East was unlikely to rise with the ace to save a guess if he possessed that card."

[axman]

 barmar, on 2018-May-22, 08:38, said:

The White Book does not go into much detail about what constitutes a "bridge reason". 8.73.1 says that deciding whether to signal with 2 small cards is not usually considered a demonstrable bridge reason. Can you really generalize that to mean that deciding whether to Smith is also not a bridge reason?

However, leading towards a KJ is one of the most tempo-sensitive situations in bridge, so the requirement to maintain consistent tempo there really needs to be enforced.

One of the things that E ought to do is to know which card goes on the spade trick.....before quitting T1.

Of the things that declarer ought not get bent out of shape over is when a situation has more than one valid explanation for a variation of tempo.

[lamford]

 axman, on 2018-May-22, 09:39, said:

One of the things that E ought to do is to know which card goes on the spade trick.....before quitting T1.

Of the things that declarer ought not get bent out of shape over is when a situation has more than one valid explanation for a variation of tempo.

In defence of SB here, he could not have anticipated declarer would be playing on the short suit at trick two. And trick one was played pretty quickly with West obviously giving count, and declarer winning with the king before leading a spade, also fairly quickly.

[axman]

 lamford, on 2018-May-22, 10:22, said:

In defence of SB here, he could not have anticipated declarer would be playing on the short suit at trick two. And trick one was played pretty quickly with West obviously giving count, and declarer winning with the king before leading a spade, also fairly quickly.

My point was that E does not know what suit will be led to T2; and he employs a play convention.

[sanst]

I try to forget who is E and also ingnore the pedantic gibberish about the distribution. How on earth can E know that N doesn't have ♠ATxx and QJxx of♣? He should have done all that thinking and speculating before he turned his card face down in trick one. But he does it at a moment where it might mislead the declarer. So, since W returned diamonds, I decide that 3NT made.
I'm b...y sure of what would have happened had SB been sitting N: "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR!!!!!!!!!!" And he would also have demanded that the TD penalized E for the flagrant breach of the 'could have been aware' clause in the Law he quoted.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2018-May-22, 08:38, said:

The White Book does not go into much detail about what constitutes a "bridge reason". 8.73.1 says that deciding whether to signal with 2 small cards is not usually considered a demonstrable bridge reason. Can you really generalize that to mean that deciding whether to Smith is also not a bridge reason?

However, leading towards a KJ is one of the most tempo-sensitive situations in bridge, so the requirement to maintain consistent tempo there really needs to be enforced.

I think you mean following, and I could not agree more.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2018-May-22, 10:22, said:

In defence of SB here, he could not have anticipated declarer would be playing on the short suit at trick two. And trick one was played pretty quickly with West obviously giving count, and declarer winning with the king before leading a spade, also fairly quickly.

East should not let others dictate his own tempo.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2018-May-22, 14:08, said:

How on earth can E know that N doesn't have ♠ATxx and QJxx of♣? He should have done all that thinking and speculating before he turned his card face down in trick one. But he does it at a moment where it might mislead the declarer. So, since W returned diamonds, I decide that 3NT made.

Your ruling is illegal, as there was a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the BIT, and SB stated that he would have appealed it all the way to the CAS if necessary. On the first point declarer would have played on clubs if he had QJxx opposite KTxx, so that is not at all likely. There is no obligation whatsoever on SB to do any thinking before he turned his card at trick one; indeed if he always did this without knowing how play could develop he would run the risk of slow-play fines; how could he have anticipated declarer would play on spades? If declarer had played the ace of clubs at trick two SB would have plenty of time to consider a Smith Peter without any danger of deception. Bridge is a game where thought is often required and at different times. I would certainly not play in an event directed by someone who ruled against SB here.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2018-May-22, 22:30, said:

I think you mean following, and I could not agree more.

I meant "When declarer is leading towards KJ", but I think we're saying the same thing.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2018-May-23, 06:55, said:

Your ruling is illegal, as there was a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the BIT, and SB stated that he would have appealed it all the way to the CAS if necessary. On the first point declarer would have played on clubs if he had QJxx opposite KTxx, so that is not at all likely. There is no obligation whatsoever on SB to do any thinking before he turned his card at trick one; indeed if he always did this without knowing how play could develop he would run the risk of slow-play fines; how could he have anticipated declarer would play on spades? If declarer had played the ace of clubs at trick two SB would have plenty of time to consider a Smith Peter without any danger of deception. Bridge is a game where thought is often required and at different times. I would certainly not play in an event directed by someone who ruled against SB here.

I think the point is that it's well established in both tradition and regulation that players are allowed extra time at trick 1 to plan their play/defense. Many RAs explicitly say that taking time during this trick should not be considered a BIT. He should use this authorized time to decide how he'll play to the next trick, since it will most likely be a Smith situation.

BTW, I really like the idea that SB has discovered the latest way to win at bridge -- appeal to a ruling body that doesn't actually know anything about bridge!

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2018-May-23, 08:27, said:

Many RAs explicitly say that taking time during this trick should not be considered a BIT.

More relevantly, none of them say that a demonstrable bridge reason for a BIT can lead to an adjusted score, nor can they. I do agree that we should all try to stop and analyse the hand at trick one!

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2018-May-23, 06:55, said:

Your ruling is illegal, as there was a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the BIT, and SB stated that he would have appealed it all the way to the CAS if necessary.

Don't be daft, better, don't let SB be daft. Does the EBU give you the chance to go to the CAS? Because that's a first necessity. From its procedural rules:

Quote

These Procedural Rules apply whenever the parties have agreed to refer a sports-related dispute to CAS. Such reference may arise out of an arbitration clause contained in a contract or regulations or by reason of a later arbitration agreement (ordinary arbitration proceedings) or may involve an appeal against a decision rendered by a federation, association or sports-related body where the statutes or regulations of such bodies, or a specific agreement provide for an appeal to CAS (appeal arbitration proceedings).

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2018-May-23, 08:22, said:

I meant "When declarer is leading towards KJ", but I think we're saying the same thing.

Well, saying the opposite.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2018-May-23, 15:03, said:

Don't be daft, better, don't let SB be daft. Does the EBU give you the chance to go to the CAS? Because that's a first necessity. From its procedural rules:

CAS 2016/A/4783 Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes v. European Bridge League (EBL) was taken by two Italians, even though there is no provision for doing so in the EBL rules. For the forthcoming European Championship in Ostend, I and others have had to sign a document agreeing not to take any case to arbitration. I agree that an appeal over a BIT ruling is a bit OTT, but SB is always OTT anyway!

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2018-May-24, 05:18, said:

CAS 2016/A/4783 Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes v. European Bridge League (EBL) was taken by two Italians, even though there is no provision for doing so in the EBL rules. For the forthcoming European Championship in Ostend, I and others have had to sign a document agreeing not to take any case to arbitration. I agree that an appeal over a BIT ruling is a bit OTT, but SB is always OTT anyway!

Bridge is not regarded as a sport in the EU. According to the ECJ - does that mean the CAS can't rule?

(I like this bit

After tax authorities rejected the application, the EBU took them to a UK court, which said bridge was a game of chance rather than a sport.

Which was exactly the reason why darts players were prosecuted in the early days of the sport.)

[pran]

Quote from The Bridge World May 1936:
On April 28 a squad of policemen broke up a Duplicate tournament in New York City and arrested the two young women, well known Bridge teachers, who were directing the contest. The charge was "keeping and maintaining and allowing their premises to be used for Contract Bridge gambling." At a hearing in a magistrate's court the next day, the case was referred to the Court of Special Sessions, the magistrate declaring that he could see no difference between such a contest and various "pin-ball" games which had been held to be illegal.

Quote from The Bridge World June 1936:
DUPLICATE Contract Bridge was pronounced a game of skill on May 25 in the Court of Special Sessions, New York, and the defendants, Miss Mildred Lovejoy and Mrs Adelaide Neuwirth, were acquitted. A feature of the trial was the testimony of Ely Culbertson and Albert H. Morehead, called to establish the status of the game.

If anybody wants to see the complete story I could scan the relevant 7 pages and publish them on "svenpran.net".

[axman]

 pran, on 2018-May-25, 03:04, said:

Quote from The Bridge World May 1936:
On April 28 a squad of policemen broke up a Duplicate tournament in New York City and arrested the two young women, well known Bridge teachers, who were directing the contest. The charge was "keeping and maintaining and allowing their premises to be used for Contract Bridge gambling." At a hearing in a magistrate's court the next day, the case was referred to the Court of Special Sessions, the magistrate declaring that he could see no difference between such a contest and various "pin-ball" games which had been held to be illegal.

Quote from The Bridge World June 1936:
DUPLICATE Contract Bridge was pronounced a game of skill on May 25 in the Court of Special Sessions, New York, and the defendants, Miss Mildred Lovejoy and Mrs Adelaide Neuwirth, were acquitted. A feature of the trial was the testimony of Ely Culbertson and Albert H. Morehead, called to establish the status of the game.

If anybody wants to see the complete story I could scan the relevant 7 pages and publish them on "svenpran.net".

please scan at 300 dpi.

thanx

[pescetom]

 weejonnie, on 2018-May-25, 02:13, said:

Bridge is not regarded as a sport in the EU. According to the ECJ - does that mean the CAS can't rule?

The ECJ ruling may have some effective tax implications, but several EU countries consider bridge an Olympic sport and will undoubtedly continue to do so. The national federations are part of EBL /WBF and so indirectly subject to CAS, as Italy is learning from the FN affair.