[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-02, 07:10, said:

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

You may consider it good bridge to simply reject all the other options that you have on autopilot. To me it is equivalent to always following suit with your highest card: You can do that in a split second, but it doesn't have anything to do with good bridge.

Most other players would like to consider ways to take advantage of the extra options that they are offered. This is entirely legal (Law 10C3) and there is nothing unethical about that. The, probably for you unexpected, consequence of this is that there is nothing particularly ethical or commendable about your refusal to use the LOOT to your advantage. (Nor is it unethical.)

Considering other options than the one you choose on autopilot will take some time. That is a bridge reason for thinking a few seconds which means that North did not commit any irregularity. And that should be the end of this entertaining story.

Rik

[RSliwinski]

Maybe it is beside the point but would not North ensure the trick for partner's jack of hearts if he called the TD? If North calls TD and does not accept the LOOT and the declarer then chooses to enter his hand and plays a heart through North and later finesse or plays an honor from the dummy and then finesse, North may claim that this play was influenced by his (Norths) non acceptance of the LOOT. After all, if North held Q-x-x in hearts he would (unless it was Sven) gladly accept the LOOT. And if he held Q-J alone he would probably also accept the LOOT and later claim that dropping the jack on the second round was also influenced by his acceptance.

[nige1]

VixTD's ruling seems reasonable. IMO, this is another example, of the endless complications that arise, when law-makers grant players unnecessary options after infractions by their opponents (Here, defenders can condone the LOOT).

The same kind of complex mess results from options afforded to players after illegal bids and plays.

I'm unsure if there should even be a player-option, whether or not to draw attention to an infraction. Perhaps, it would be better if the law stipulated that you call the director as soon as you're aware of an infraction.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2015-May-02, 07:10, said:

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

Is Sven referring to the situation here, where he is the LHO of Declarer AND holds a singleton quack? I change my vote. West could not have been thinking about his option to require the lead to be from dummy, because with that holding he would have exercised the option.

Furthermore, Sven's split second reaction "You are in Dummy." is interesting. Would he split-second screw his partner's stiff Queen if he himself held the JXX? We have a can of worms here. Declarer's irregularity could provide him with a "tell".

[pran]

Explicitly related to Declarer's lead from the wrong hand I prefer as defender to prevent him from committing the irregularity rather than to elaborate on how I can best take advantage of the situation.

I know that technically I am too late, the irregularity has already been committed once the card is called, but as I know that I am not alone in this comprehension I realize (from among other things this discussion) that we live in different cultures on how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

[blackshoe]

RSliwinski, on 2015-May-02, 10:16, said:

Maybe it is beside the point but would not North ensure the trick for partner's jack of hearts if he called the TD? If North calls TD and does not accept the LOOT and the declarer then chooses to enter his hand and plays a heart through North and later finesse or plays an honor from the dummy and then finesse, North may claim that this play was influenced by his (Norths) non acceptance of the LOOT. After all, if North held Q-x-x in hearts he would (unless it was Sven) gladly accept the LOOT. And if he held Q-J alone he would probably also accept the LOOT and later claim that dropping the jack on the second round was also influenced by his acceptance.

Seems to me that players might claim just about anything — and they often do. Don't care. It's up to the TD to gather the facts — and players' opinions are not facts — and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence he gathers.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-May-02, 11:28, said:

Explicitly related to Declarer's lead from the wrong hand I prefer as defender to prevent him from committing the irregularity rather than to elaborate on how I can best take advantage of the situation.

I know that technically I am too late, the irregularity has already been committed once the card is called, but as I know that I am not alone in this comprehension I realize (from among other things this discussion) that we live in different cultures on how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

Asserting that you take the ethical high road over those who disagree with you is, it seems to me, an implicit admission that you're wrong.

[sanst]

pran, on 2015-May-02, 07:10, said:

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

I thought you immediatelly called the TD, not making comments like that. And please, don't imply that all who don't agree with you, have other - probably lower - standards than you about how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

Joost

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-02, 11:28, said:

I realize (from among other things this discussion) that we live in different cultures on how we prefer to play and win in bridge.

As a player, you can play and win using any legal way you prefer. But that is of very little relevance here.

As a TD it is your job to apply the laws, not to impose your opinions on how to play and win in bridge. That means that it is simply wrong to adjust the score with the sole argument that North chooses to play and win in bridge in a way different from yours.

Our cultures have nothing to do with it. Adjusting the score is wrong in Dutch culture, in American culture, in Inuit culture and it is just as wrong in Norwegian culture. It is wrong for one simple reason: There is no basis for it in the laws.

Rik

[pran]

Apparently there is a lot of confusion between my preferred attitude as player and my attitude as director.

Referring to the situation described in OP I would as North (if I noticed the irregularity in progress) tried to prevent West from the incorrect lead by saying "you are in dummy".

However, as Director I would of course certainly act strictly according to the laws and when called to the table:
1: Establish precisely why I was called ("How can I help you?")
- According to OP the answer would be "North hesitated a significant periode of time before following suit with his single ♥Queen. That hesitation caused West to select an unfortunate line of play".

2: If at all I myself noticed that Weat at the time had led from the wrong hand I would note that nobody at the table mentioned this irregularity, which therefore is completely irrelevant in connection with the alleged hesitation.

3: Establish that according to the circumstances as presented to me North has hesitated for reasons known only to himself. I would therefore rule that he had violated Law 73D2. I would further rule that this irregularity in my opinion was likely to mislead West into an unfortunate line of play and adjust the result on the board accordingly.

4: Finally, if I find that the hesitation had been deliberate I would impose a PP on North. (Law 73D2 uses the clause "may not" which is the second strongest term in the laws.)

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-03, 03:12, said:

3: Establish that according to the circumstances as presented to me North has hesitated for reasons known only to himself.

This gets us back to the questions I asked before and that you didn't answer:

What are North's options?
How much time does it take North to realize what options he has?
How much time does it take North to choose from one of the options?

All together, we expect that this will take North several seconds. So North has a good bridge reason for a hesitation of several seconds.

That means that the reasons for North's hesitation are not only known to himself. No, the whole world knows the reason - the good bridge reason - for the hesitation.

There is only one person who doesn't know the reason for the hesitation. He doesn't see the reason since he would not hesitate himself in that situation. After all, he would instantaneously tell declarer that he is in dummy ... err... I mean instantaneously call the TD ... or?? ... was it now telling declaring he's in dummy? ... or ... perhaps graciously (or inattentively) accept the lead?!? ... or would he anyway think about law 53A? ... Anyway... err ... whatever he does ... it would be instantaneous ... somehow.

Rik

[blackshoe]

If you don't ask North why he broke tempo, you're falling down on the job.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-03, 05:24, said:

If you don't ask North why he broke tempo, you're falling down on the job.

Who says I wouldn't ask?
But according to OP North didn't give any reason for his hesitation.

I believe we have a well established rule on this forum that the description given in OP shall be considered complete?

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-03, 06:38, said:

Who says I wouldn't ask?
But according to OP North didn't give any reason for his hesitation.

I believe we have a well established rule on this forum that the description given in OP shall be considered complete?

Perhaps everybody else in the forum realizes from the description given that North does have a decision to make and that therefore a hesitation is expected. They also realize that when North reacts exactly as he is expected to do, we don't have any reason to suspect that he is performing some kind of act to attempt to mislead declarer.

And if we don't have any reason to suspect an irregularity by North, there is little reason to ask him for his motives. (Though lots of posts ago someone was already suggesting that it might be wise to ask North why it took him some time to play to the trick... Just to be sure. I would certainly not be against that. And, yes, in the unlikely case that North should happen to say: "I hesitated to make declarer think that I had QJ." then we adjust. But we don't even think of adjusting as soon as North starts with anything that sounds like: "Well err... I thought he was in dummy" or "It was a lead out of turn and " or "I somehow didn't expect that I would be on play already" or "I was considering my options" or "I was wondering what to do" or "I was thinking of calling the TD" or ...)

A few years ago they past a law in the Netherlands that required everybody over 14 years to carry an ID. The police (or other authorities) are not allowed to ask for an ID, unless they have a good reason to know your identity (or age).

IMO, but this is an opinion, TDs should go about the same way when it comes to asking players about their thought processes or motives. As a TD, we do not ask North for his thought processes or motives, just because they might give us information. We need to have a good reason. In this case that good reason would be a suspicion of an irregularity. From the description in the OP I don't see any reason to suspect North of an irregularity. I can see that anybody who overlooked the LOOT will see lots of reasons to suspect an irregularity, but as soon as the LOOT is in the picture all suspicions are gone. North has been behaving exactly as we expected him to.

Of course, it is entirely possible that North was hesitating in an attempt to mislead declarer, just like it is entirely possible that the South player at the next table used UI. But there is no indication whatsoever that the South player at the next table used UI, so we are not going over to ask him some questions. In a similar way, there is no indication whatsoever that this North was hesitating to mislead declarer. So there is no reason to ask any questions.

Rik

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-May-03, 06:38, said:

Who says I wouldn't ask?
But according to OP North didn't give any reason for his hesitation.

I believe we have a well established rule on this forum that the description given in OP shall be considered complete?

Rule? No. I will say that I don't think we can make assumptions about a particular case if the OP doesn't specify all the pertinent facts.

The discussion had gone, imo, from the specific "what happened in the OP case" to the general "how do we handle these cases".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-03, 07:50, said:

Rule? No. I will say that I don't think we can make assumptions about a particular case if the OP doesn't specify all the pertinent facts.

Do we have any reason to believe that OP didn't specify all the pertinent facts when

OP said:

West is playing in 4♥. North leads ♣K then the queen, ruffed by West in the dummy. West then leads ♥7. North follows with ♥Q after a pause of several seconds. West takes the ace and plays small to the king on the next round. When North shows out they complain to my colleague that they were misled by the break in tempo and want a score adjustment.

Do they deserve one?

[blackshoe]

Yes we do.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2015-May-03, 08:27, said:

Do we have any reason to believe that OP didn't specify all the pertinent facts when

I think those are all the relevant facts. Where do you see any suspicion for an irregularity by North?

All I see is an accusation by West, which can easily be understood by the natural assumption that West didn't realize he had led out of turn. But to anybody who realizes West led out of turn, there is no reason to suspect any irregularity by North.

North has been thinking for a few seconds. Well, North is allowed to think for a few seconds if he has a bridge reason. Did he have a bridge reason? Yes. So, no irregularity. End of story.

Rik

[barmar]

73D1 says that an opponent draws an inference from an opponent's variation at his own risk. When combined with the 73F clause about "demonstrable bridge reason", what this means is that if you incorrectly guess what the opponent was thinking about, you're not protected, so long as he had a legitimate need to think. So if North was thinking about whether to accept the lead from the wrong hand, but West assumes he was thinking about which card to play, West is out of luck.

But I think in order to make that ruling, we need to know if that's what North was thinking about. If not, then he did not actually have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the hesitation. If he didn't notice the LOOT, then he failed to be "particularly careful" in a tempo-sensitive situation.