[Bende]

There has been an intense debate on a Swedish bridge forum around the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason" in law 73. In essence, is it allowed for a player to hesitate while thinking about how to play the cards in a manner which will deceive declarer? For instance if the player figures out declarer has a choice between a squeeze and a finesse and though the player has no cards that can actually win a trick it might require some thought to figure out in which way they should be played to make declarer pick the wrong option.

The argument for is that it is part of the defense in bridge to give declarer difficulties. The argument against is that declarer might be deceived not by the actual cards played but by the actual hesitation which suggest the defender had some "actual" difficulties.

Is it obvious what the answer is?

[awm]

There is some precedent indicating that hesitations which are only in order to figure out how to best deceive the opposition are not considered a demonstrable bridge reason.

I think there was a case where declarer was about to win a trick with one of the AKQ and wanted to decide which would most likely get the opponents to continue that suit (thinking partner had some of the missing honors) at their next opportunity. Declarer hesitated for a while before deciding, and this made the opponents think that a hold-up play was a possibility, and they then mistakenly returned the same suit at their next chance. The committee ruling was that deciding "how to falsecard" was not a demonstrable bridge reason.

[cherdanno]

I think it depends on the situation. If you are sitting behind AQJ in dummy, you can't hesitate with xxx to decide whether to give true or false count when declarer leads up to the Q.
When declarer is running a long suit and you have only worthless cards, there is nothing wrong with thinking before your first discard figuring out the positions and which discards will prevent declarer from reading the position. All this is just IMHO.

[peachy]

Law 73.F covers it IMO adequately

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).

There is at least one precedent case in appeals from ACBL nationals where it was ruled that to break tempo in order to decide "how to deceive the opponent" is not a demonstrable bridge reason.

[blackshoe]

This sounds an awful lot like putting the cart (we want to rule that there was an infraction) before the horse (is "deciding how (or whether) to deceive" a demonstrable bridge reason?)

I would rather argue that while deciding how or whether to deceive via a call or play is a demonstrable bridge reason for thinking, the thinking itself may deceive — and players should not be able to gain from that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the law as currently worded will support that view. Hence the "cart before the horse" precedent, which is imo the wrong way to go about it. I would rather see the AC rule "we can find no basis in law for ruling that there was an infraction here, because of the way the law is worded", and refer the case to the Supreme Court ACBLLC for resolution.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Jun 2 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

refer the case to the Supreme Court ACBLLC for resolution.

Good idea, as they are a relevant body in Sweden. Sometimes the parochialism of Americans amazes me.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, I was going on the basis of the precedent someone mentioned - which was an ACBL case.

Go ahead, submit it to Sweden's NBO, or the WBFLC.

[peachy]

Vampyr, on Jun 1 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 2 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

refer the case to the Supreme Court ACBLLC for resolution.

Good idea, as they are a relevant body in Sweden. Sometimes the parochialism of Americans amazes me.

Never bypass the opportunity to say something like this...

[cherdanno]

blackshoe, on Jun 1 2010, 07:17 PM, said:

This sounds an awful lot like putting the cart (we want to rule that there was an infraction) before the horse (is "deciding how (or whether) to deceive" a demonstrable bridge reason?)

I would rather argue that while deciding how or whether to deceive via a call or play is a demonstrable bridge reason for thinking, the thinking itself may deceive — and players should not be able to gain from that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the law as currently worded will support that view. Hence the "cart before the horse" precedent, which is imo the wrong way to go about it. I would rather see the AC rule "we can find no basis in law for ruling that there was an infraction here, because of the way the law is worded", and refer the case to the Supreme Court ACBLLC for resolution.

I would just consider it case law that treats the claim "I was wondering with which of three equivalent cards to falsecard in this situation" as not credible when the player in question knows exactly that hesitation in this situation usually implies something else about his hand.
So this wouldn't be about changing the law, just setting a standard for weighing evidence. (Every bridge player who can falsecard learns to falsecard in tempo as you need to do that with 99% of all falsecards; since they are capable of that it is hard to believe they suddenly have to think about falsecarding when sitting with xxx behind dummy's AQJ).

[PeterE]

Bende, on Jun 1 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Is it obvious what the answer is?

Yes, it is

[blackshoe]

PeterE, on Jun 2 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

Bende, on Jun 1 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Is it obvious what the answer is?

Yes, it is

There is the (possibly apocryphal) tale of the physics professor who, asked this question, left the lecture hall, went somewhere to think about it, and returned some forty minutes later, before giving your answer.

[ulven]

awm, on Jun 1 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

There is some precedent indicating that hesitations which are only in order to figure out how to best deceive the opposition are not considered a demonstrable bridge reason.

I think there was a case where declarer was about to win a trick with one of the AKQ and wanted to decide which would most likely get the opponents to continue that suit (thinking partner had some of the missing honors) at their next opportunity. Declarer hesitated for a while before deciding, and this made the opponents think that a hold-up play was a possibility, and they then mistakenly returned the same suit at their next chance. The committee ruling was that deciding "how to falsecard" was not a demonstrable bridge reason.

The discussion mentioned by the intitial poster did not pertain to tempovariations when following suit. One example was that the contract was 6NT and declarer was about to run off a long suit. Defender took a while to figure out the situation and how to discard. From that point on there were no hesitations but declarer decided to play for the squeeze based in the initial 'tank'.

Defender tried to figure out the hand, what signals to make to his partner and if he should false-card or not. Is that a demonstrable bridge reason? Does thinking carry a responsibility to hold key honors? How should defenders know without analysing the deal...? (The hen or the egg? )

I can't see any reason why this 'tank' isn't allowed, with the tank being within reason (i.e. not 5-10 min). 73E allows you to try to deceive declarer with the order you play your cards.

[mich-b]

In Ulven's example , i think the defender did nothing wrong and was perfectly within ethical and legal limits. It looks as if declarer misjudged the inferences from the tank , maybe because he underestimated the defender's abilities, and thought he would need to analyze the situation only if holding crucial honours.
What happened to "at his own risk"?

And more generally , I feel that the "could have known.." phrasing is too harsh. Defenders who think can always be shown to "could have known" what would happen , because indeed that is what happened (declarer taking wrong inferences from the tank). I feel that unless the TD concludes the tank was an intentional , coffeehousing style, attemp to decieve, declarer's inferences should be done "at his own risk".

[bluejak]

That would involve a very unfortunate change in the Law. If we followed your ideas, then when someone, holding a singleton, did not realise it was his turn to play so apparently hesitated there would be no redress.

The current method is far better: intent is irrelevant: in tempo sensitive situations players may not mislead whether intentionally or by accident.



As for the initial question, the general interpretation is that hesitating in a tempo sensitive situation while deciding whether to false-card or not does not count as a demonstrable bridge reason. I approve.

[ulven]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 06:34 AM, said:

As for the initial question, the general interpretation is that hesitating in a tempo sensitive situation while deciding whether to false-card or not does not count as a demonstrable bridge reason.  I approve.

How do you feel about thinking when discarding on a long suit? Assuming that it only occurs once (and not repeatadly each trick), would you call this "a tempo sensitive situation" and say that is is not "a demonstrable bridge reason" to consider falsecarding?

For my money there's a big difference between when:
a/ you follow suit, where which card you can play is limited and it's relatively easy to spot "a tempo sensitive situation"
and
b/ when you can't follow suit and have wide option of cards to play and it's hard to know whether "a tempo sensitive situation" exists in another suit at all.

In case b/ declarer forces the defence to discard on a long suit it's rare for the defence to immediately recognize the existence of a sensitive layout without thinking about the hand.

[bluejak]

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation. It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation. It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

It often happens that players need to discard from worthless holdings in such a way as to pretend to be squeezed. This is not at all an "extremely rare" position.

[axman]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation. It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

Variations of tempo convey information. Ergo, the first discard- as well as all discards are tempo sensitve.

There are three occasions that are useful to players where providing for a consistent pause solves problems [a] when sorting/ and initially evaluating a hand [b]after skip bids and [c] before playing to the first trick. Where such pause is consistent from deal to deal it is not tempo sensitive.

[Phil]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation. It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

So, we are obligated to discard a quick spot from five (or make two painless discards from six), and then exhibit distress as we search the heavens for guidance on our next five pitches?

I think I am allowed as a player to actually think about the cards I plan to discard, with a few contingencies based on what I see played from the other hands.

[bluejak]

Phil, on Jun 3 2010, 04:58 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation.  It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

So, we are obligated to discard a quick spot from five (or make two painless discards from six), and then exhibit distress as we search the heavens for guidance on our next five pitches?

I do not understand the connection between my post and this answer.

Phil, on Jun 3 2010, 04:58 PM, said:

I think I am allowed as a player to actually think about the cards I plan to discard, with a few contingencies based on what I see played from the other hands.

So do I: is that not what I said?

dburn, on Jun 3 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation.  It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

It often happens that players need to discard from worthless holdings in such a way as to pretend to be squeezed. This is not at all an "extremely rare" position.

Maybe that does mean that later discards can be tempo sensitive. But surely not the first.

axman, on Jun 3 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 08:33 AM, said:

The first discard on a long suit is not a tempo sensitive situation.  It is extremely rare that any discard on a long suit is a tempo sensitive situation, though no doubt we could find one.

Variations of tempo convey information. Ergo, the first discard- as well as all discards are tempo sensitve.

Not really. I suppose it conveys the information that you think about your discards, but so what?

No, I do not think the first discard is tempo sensitive, since there is no useful information conveyed by pausing before it.