[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2015-October-26, 02:06, said:

The purpose of the WB is to provide guidance to TDs. It contains many examples, but it is not reasonable to expect a guidance document to describe every situation exactly. Readers are allowed to use their intelligence in assessing whether the example of hesitating with two small cards is explaining a principle rather than issuing a directive about one specific situation.

Fine, but when the writers specify two small cards one wonders whether there was a reason. There are languages which contain only the numbers "one" and "many", but Engjish is not one of them.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2015-October-26, 06:08, said:

The EBU position is that you cannot appeal suspension from the current session before the end of the session. In principal, the decision could be reviewed later by an appeals committee, who could suggest the TD ameliorate [change for the better] the consequences of the suspension.

How is he going to do that, after the session is over?

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-October-26, 03:41, said:

FWIW, I would reduce the White Book rather than increase it. On this topic, I would write, briefly, "It is up to the TD (or AC) to decide whether a BIT is for a demonstrable bridge reason".

I think the point of examples like this is to make it more likely that this decision will be consistent across different TDs. When you have imprecise language like "demonstrable bridge reason" and "must be particularly careful", TDs need some guidance about how to interpret it.

Perhaps this argues that the Laws themselves should be more precise, so that we don't need RAs to fill in the details (since that means they'll likely be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions).

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-26, 10:26, said:

How is he going to do that, after the session is over?

That would be for the AC to suggest but obvious things would be awarding AVE+ for the boards the pair did not play, refunding (a proportion of) their entry fee, the TD apologising for misjudging the situation.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2015-October-26, 10:09, said:

Fine, but when the writers specify two small cards one wonders whether there was a reason. There are languages which contain only the numbers "one" and "many", but Engjish is not one of them.

The reason is probably because this is an example that the L&EC had come across in practice. I've certainly heard about cases where declarer has a 9-card fir with a 2-way finesse for a Q. He leads the J from hand and then the next hand pauses from xx. When asked by the TD, the defender explains what he was deciding whether or not to give count.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2015-October-26, 16:22, said:

The reason is probably because this is an example that the L&EC had come across in practice. I've certainly heard about cases where declarer has a 9-card fir with a 2-way finesse for a Q. He leads the J from hand and then the next hand pauses from xx. When asked by the TD, the defender explains what he was deciding whether or not to give count.

I would regard that as not a demonstrable bridge reason, unless the player can convince me that whether he has two or three trumps could matter.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2015-October-26, 02:06, said:

Why is the regulation illegal? Isn't it just explaining that deciding which low card to play when following suit is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo in the context of Law 73?

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:56, said:

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

If the player only ate a banana when he had a seven-card suit, that would be illegal communication, unless it was just coincidence.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-October-27, 09:34, said:

If the player only ate a banana when he had a seven-card suit, that would be illegal communication, unless it was just coincidence.

He wrote: "Eat a banana". He didn't write: "Bring a giraffe" or "Wear Cologne".



Rik

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:56, said:

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

I think they're interpreting the law as actually meaning a good, demonstrable bridge reason. Otherwise, players could come up with all sorts of fanciful reasons, and we would have to respect them.

Or maybe they're just saying that you can't really demonstrate a reason why you have to wait until the last moment before deciding whether to give count in a particular suit. So it's not "demonstrable".

[jallerton]

jallerton, on 2015-October-26, 02:06, said:

Why is the regulation illegal? Isn't it just explaining that deciding which low card to play when following suit is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for breaking tempo in the context of Law 73?

By the way, it is possible to think about one's signal without breaking tempo. it is also highly desirable. Varying tempo before signalling provides UI to partner; this makes defending even harder for players who are trying to comply with their ethical obligations.

gnasher, on 2015-October-27, 06:56, said:

That's what makes it illegal. It is a bridge reason, and it can be demonstrated.

The EBU's regulations can't redefine the normal meanings of words used in the Laws, because that would allow them to write rules that are in conflict with the Laws. If it's legal to write this regulation, it's legal to write a regulation that reads "For the purpose of Law 73, the word 'communicate' means 'eat a banana'."

I don't understand. A defender has 62 doubleton in a suit defending against 7NT. Declarer leads the jack from hand. What is the bridge reason for breaking tempo in deciding whether to play the 6 or the 2?

Quote

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

This is not some moral statement which Gordon has invented; it is a direct quote from the Law.

[helene_t]

ahydra, on 2015-October-24, 04:05, said:

What if West says "sorry, need to think about the whole hand"?

This sounds like he is saying explicitly that he is not thinking of covering. He is not required to help declarer that much.

So it would be better to say "sorry, have to turn my phone off"

[pran]

helene_t, on 2015-October-28, 04:31, said:

This sounds like he is saying explicitly that he is not thinking of covering. He is not required to help declarer that much.

So it would be better to say "sorry, have to turn my phone off"

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

[lamford]

pran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Any remark which suggests that you do not have an honour in the suit could be construed as misleading if you do have one. If you have no demonstrable bridge reason to break tempo, the infraction has occurred whatever you say.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

lamford, on 2015-October-28, 07:30, said:

Any remark which suggests that you do not have an honour in the suit could be construed as misleading if you do have one. If you have no demonstrable bridge reason to break tempo, the infraction has occurred whatever you say.

I intentially wrote "appears true".

You as TD, and the other players at the table will probably be quite competent in judging the difference between a player apparently concentrating on some question and a player apparently just being absentminded?

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

Isn't that admitting that he's violating 74B1: "paying insufficient attention to the game"? So he's just replacing one possible infraction with another.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-October-28, 06:20, said:

The best would be to say something like: "Sorry, I was absentminded", provided that appears true.

barmar, on 2015-October-28, 09:27, said:

Isn't that admitting that he's violating 74B1: "paying insufficient attention to the game"? So he's just replacing one possible infraction with another.

Sure,
but it is replacing a possibly serious violation (of Law 74C7) with a certainly more excusable violation (of Law 74B1).

Who has never accidentally failed to immediately observe when it is his turn to call (or play)?

[barmar]

pran, on 2015-October-28, 11:04, said:

Sure,
but it is replacing a possibly serious violation (of Law 74C7) with a certainly more excusable violation (of Law 74B1).

Who has never accidentally failed to immediately observe when it is his turn to call (or play)?

Is it appropriate to say that you were absent-minded if that wasn't actually the case, but you're trying to hide the fact that you were thinking about the card? Isn't lying about the reason for your hesitation a violation of 73D1: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...".

So you can't coffeehouse, and you can't try to get away with it by saying that you weren't coffeehousing -- both of them violate 73D1. You have to be truly distracted in order to claim that you're only violating 74B1.

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

[pran]

barmar, on 2015-October-30, 09:49, said:

Is it appropriate to say that you were absent-minded if that wasn't actually the case, but you're trying to hide the fact that you were thinking about the card? Isn't lying about the reason for your hesitation a violation of 73D1: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, ...".

So you can't coffeehouse, and you can't try to get away with it by saying that you weren't coffeehousing -- both of them violate 73D1. You have to be truly distracted in order to claim that you're only violating 74B1.

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

This is insulting.

To repeat myself - I intentially wrote "appears true". And I never accept anybody deliberately lying, so I don't appreciate (repeated) suggestions that I favour fancy excuses in order to conceal a serious infringement of the laws.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-October-30, 09:49, said:

One exception to this the law that allows for mandatory hesitations after skip bids -- this is a case where you're supposed to mislead declarer. But this was apparently authorized because it also misleads partner, and that was felt to be more important.

I doubt very much that the lawmakers were thinking along the lines you suggest here when they made that law. I also doubt the regulating authorities were thinking along those lines when they implemented it in regulation.