[jallerton]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

So just to be clear, failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count is un-blatantly ridiculous then?

That's not the question to be considered. Instead, the TD needs to consider whether failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count after RHO has thought for a long time is "wild or gambling" In fact as the hand comes from Denmark, the TD would consult the Danish laws and would only deny redress if the action is considered to be "vildt satsende" which roughly translates to "wildly gambling", apparently.

[McBruce]

So we are all saying that considering a raise is not a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation? A raise to 3♠ is not an invite of any kind, it is designed to make the opponent's job more difficult. For many players it deserves consideration on those cards when partner opens a constructive weak two in first chair on these colours. I think I would want better evidence that East's hesitation was meant to deceive before I applied Law 73F. In fact, the third post of this thread says that East was unfamiliar with constructive weak twos and needed time to consider what sort of hands West might have. If 73F inhibits this type of thought process, it may prove to be the best weapon available against the proliferation of conventions.

[aguahombre]

No, McB, I think we are saying that an East at this level has nothing to hitch about for 1 min with this hand, and that if he had 3+ trumps he would either have nothing to hitch about or after stalling that long ---had better not pass.

We might also be saying that a weak two with 8-11 or a weak two with 5-11 has no bearing on what East held. This is supposedly not some shluk off the street; he probably has encountered weak two's before.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Jul 21 2010, 07:56 PM, said:

This is supposedly not some shluk off the street; he probably has encountered weak two's before.

Duschek said:

East was not familiar with playing constructive weak twos.

Apparently not.

[aguahombre]

clipping my comment about 8-11 vs 5-11 apparently gives you some point.

[blackshoe]

I clipped it because I didn't think it was germane. Apparently you do, so I have misunderstood you. Perhaps you would care to elucidate.

[bluejak]

NickRW, on Jul 21 2010, 02:46 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 21 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

You are telling us it is not an error to revoke? 

I thought it was an infraction.

Sure, and it is an error to commit an infraction.

JanM, on Jul 21 2010, 04:55 PM, said:

Where does IWoG appear in the previous laws? It's not in Law 12 of the 1997 Laws. I haven't been able to find a digitized version of the Laws before 2007, so couldn't search for it except by turning pages in a physical book, which isn't very effective.

It was generally introduced over a period of time. At one time I tried to find out when a player was denied redress, and discovered that it was after committing a "wild or gambling action" in England/Wales, a "failure to play bridge" or an "egregious error" in the ACBL, and an "irrational, wild or gambling action" in much of the rest of the world. The idea of denying a player redress did not appear in the Laws before the 2007 [2008] Laws.

gordontd, on Jul 21 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

There was a long discussion about this at the EBL TDs' course in San Remo, and the thrust of it was that we should be very circumspect about branding an action as a serious error. We went through a list of cases where TDs or ACs had considered actions to be serious errors, and in the vast majority of cases they were considered to have been wrong.

Of course (at the risk of boring everyone with repetition), it's only serious errors that are unrelated to the infraction that cause redress to be denied. The (in)action that started this thread off was not unrelated to the infraction, so whether or not you consider it a serious error, it wouldn't cause redress to be denied.

The thing that worried me at San Remo was when Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBFLC, said that the words "unrelated to the infraction" were irrelevant and might as well not be there. While his views did seem to be in a minority, his position made the view interesting.

jallerton, on Jul 21 2010, 11:43 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 21 2010, 05:07 PM, said:

JanM, on Jul 21 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Where does IWoG appear in the previous laws?

It doesn't. It may have been in a WBFLC minute, I'm not sure.

The term did not appear in the 1997 Laws.

It was introduced in the The First Edition of the World Bridge Federation Code of Practice (“CoP”), which was published by the WBF in December 1999 and adopted by the European Bridge League in January 2000. However, as the Code of Practice did not replace the Laws themselves, NBOs were under no obligation to adopt the CoP. For example, in England the Laws & Ethics Committee decided not to adopt the CoP recommendations for denying redress for "irrational" actions.

The term was already in use but had not been in print in a WBF publication. Of course, things were complicated by the fact that the CoP was not a WBFLC publication.

McBruce, on Jul 22 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

So we are all saying that considering a raise is not a demonstrable bridge reason for the hesitation?  A raise to 3♠ is not an invite of any kind, it is designed to make the opponent's job more difficult.  For many players it deserves consideration on those cards when partner opens a constructive weak two in first chair on these colours.  I think I would want better evidence that East's hesitation was meant to deceive before I applied Law 73F.

Law 73F applies whether or not there was any intent to deceive, so the TD has no reason whatever to investigate whether there was such intent. When a player has taken insufficient care over his tempo in a tempo-sensitive situation, Law 73F kicks in.

[bluejak]

JLOGIC, on Jul 21 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

3S p p ?

It is completely normal to bid 3N with 3334 16 HCP with a spade stopper, I'm sure you'll agree.

Yes, I would.

However, when I bid 3NT in this situation about six years back [I was a point stronger, in fact], I was criticised because it lost the match. My partner criticised me very mildly, as did my team-mates. However, when I posted it on RGB I got some of the nastiest remarks made about me that have ever been made on the internet, basically saying I had only posted it so as to criticise partner's actions.

So I am not as quick as previously to say I would bid 3NT, and I can assure you it does not meet with 100% support!

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Jul 21 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

I clipped it because I didn't think it was germane. Apparently you do, so I have misunderstood you. Perhaps you would care to elucidate.

East has no bid opposite an 11 point weak two. He has no bid opposite a five point weak two. It took him one minute to figure that out, or so he says. I don't know how else to elucidate.

[blackshoe]

If you don't believe that East had a bridge reason for thinking, in spite of what he said, then I suppose that will factor into your ruling.

I would be interested in seeing a summary of what laws were violated, what laws govern any adjustment, and what the adjustment should be — and whether and how much of a PP should be given, and why, if that is felt to be appropriate. I don't think we have a consensus yet on any of that.

[McBruce]

bluejak, on Jul 21 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

Law 73F applies whether or not there was any intent to deceive, so the TD has no reason whatever to investigate whether there was such intent. When a player has taken insufficient care over his tempo in a tempo-sensitive situation, Law 73F kicks in.

I agree that the TD does not investigate intent. But you must investigate whether there is a demonstrable bridge reason for the tempo break, and if we set the bar so high that nobody can think their way through the logic of a new and unfamiliar structure, we're in effect penalizing players for opting to play conventions that they have not become thoroughly familiar with, by forcing them to take a guess without thinking too long.

What the majority is saying here is "sorry East, I have to apply this penalty, not because I think you intended to deceive, but because it was a possibility and N-S were damaged." That is all well and good and keeps things civil. But to get to that point you've first decided not to believe East's reason for thinking. I agree that there may be situations in which East should not be believed: obviously this would be the case if he held a weaker hand. But if it can be confirmed that he has never played constructive weak twos, I think it is quite possible he has a case. The wording of Law 73F indicates that the bar is quite low; all he needs is any demonstrable bridge reason for thinking as long as he did. I think a good TD should make a judgment, weighing all the relevant factors, and not start from the assumption that East was trying to deceive and is lying to you.

But then, I'm an optimist.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Jul 22 2010, 08:38 AM, said:

I think a good TD should make a judgment, weighing all the relevant factors, and not start from the assumption that East was trying to deceive and is lying to you.

Excuse me? I said it makes no difference whether there was an intent to deceive. Therefore, as a TD, I do not assume anyone is lying because I do not need such a determination. Why on earth would I assume anyone is lying?

Whether East is lying is of supreme indifference to me as far as whether Law 73F applies.

[Cascade]

L73F requires for their to be no demonstable bridge reason.

If East gives a demonstable bridge reason for his tempo then in order to rule against him you need to make a determination that he was not telling the truth in order to apply a L73F adjustment.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on Jul 22 2010, 07:38 AM, said:

L73F requires for their to be no demonstable bridge reason.

If East gives a demonstable bridge reason for his tempo then in order to rule against him you need to make a determination that he was not telling the truth in order to apply a L73F adjustment.

Sure, but you could also determine that the reason he gave is not a bridge reason, rather than accusing him of having thought that reason up after the fact.

[Cascade]

I think deciding whether or not to make a preemptive raise is a bridge reason.

[campboy]

Let's suppose he was only deciding between a pre-emptive raise and pass. Then (i) I don't think there is any hand which justifies thinking for 1 minute about that (ii) even if there were such hands, the hand he had is not one of them (iii) even if there were such a hand and the player actually had such a hand he would be in breach of law 73D1, which requires particular care to be taken in situations such as this.

[TylerE]

Huh? How could thinking about a legitimate problem ever violate the laws? Contrain partner, possibly, but be actually illegal?

[campboy]

Law 73D1 says

Quote

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady
tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly
careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

and the introduction clarifies

Quote

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the
infractor’s rights but not often penalized)

[jdonn]

jallerton, on Jul 21 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 21 2010, 12:11 AM, said:

So just to be clear, failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count is un-blatantly ridiculous then?

That's not the question to be considered. Instead, the TD needs to consider whether failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count after RHO has thought for a long time is "wild or gambling"

Which brings me back to my second post in this thread.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on Jul 22 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

L73F requires for their to be no demonstable bridge reason.

If East gives a demonstable bridge reason for his tempo then in order to rule against him you need to make a determination that he was not telling the truth in order to apply a L73F adjustment.

Not at all: the same applies to hesitations. TDs make judgements after hearing the evidence. Sometimes their judgements do not appear to agree with what they have been told. That does not mean anything so simple as an accusation of lying, it is a difference of opinion over judgement.