[swanway]

We have a member of our club who on a regular basis will hesitate for some time before playing a card. This in itself is not illegal. However, he will always do it when he is a defender and declarer is playing a card towards AQ in dummy. He always hestitates in this situation even if he has a singleton or very low cards in his hand. This makes declarer belief that he cannot decide to play the king or not. Is this kind of hesitation (on a regular basis) illegal or just unethical or are we paranoid?

[wank]

to hesitate with the intention to deceive is cheating.

[pran]

 wank, on 2011-July-07, 03:26, said:

to hesitate with the intention to deceive is cheating.

This includes deception in the form of hesitating for the purpose of concealing that he has nothing to think about!

The question of regularly hesitating for the main purpose of maintaining a constant tempo (during auction and/or play) was raised some years ago by a player (top class) in Norway, and the clear answer was that such hesitating is definitely illegal.

[mjj29]

 pran, on 2011-July-07, 03:45, said:

This includes deception in the form of hesitating for the purpose of concealing that he has nothing to think about!

The question of regularly hesitating for the main purpose of maintaining a constant tempo (during auction and/or play) was raised some years ago by a player (top class) in Norway, and the clear answer was that such hesitating is definitely illegal.

randomly hesitating in order to conceal your real hesitations isn't maintaining a constant tempo and is illegal. Making _all_ your easy calls be at least 'deliberate' rather than 'hasty' is maintaining a constant tempo, and is (imo) a good thing.

[gordontd]

 swanway, on 2011-July-07, 02:30, said:

We have a member of our club who on a regular basis will hesitate for some time before playing a card. This in itself is not illegal. However, he will always do it when he is a defender and declarer is playing a card towards AQ in dummy. He always hestitates in this situation even if he has a singleton or very low cards in his hand. This makes declarer belief that he cannot decide to play the king or not. Is this kind of hesitation (on a regular basis) illegal or just unethical or are we paranoid?

I think you should point him to:

Quote

L73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. 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

Quote

L73F. Violation of Proprieties
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).

However I'm not sure that your example is a good one: players don't usually consider playing the King under the AQ, so a hesitation here doesn't really indicate much (and there may well not be another option but to finesse).

Change it to a situation where there's a two-way finesse and a high card has been led, or a lead towards KJx(x), and a hesitation is much more likely to create a situation for an adjustment.

First of all though, make sure the player is aware of his obligations, and then if he continues to fail in them you could start giving him procedural penalties in addition to any adjustment.

[pran]

 mjj29, on 2011-July-07, 04:16, said:

randomly hesitating in order to conceal your real hesitations isn't maintaining a constant tempo and is illegal. Making _all_ your easy calls be at least 'deliberate' rather than 'hasty' is maintaining a constant tempo, and is (imo) a good thing.

It certainly is not.
It means that you will delay all your calls and all your plays so that you for each of them spend the time anticipated to be used on the one demanding the longest time for deciding what to call or what to play.

This is a clear violation of Law 74B4: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

("Play" is here to be understood according to definition 4 on the term: The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board.)

Anticipating an assertion that prolonging the play unnecessarily is legal when the purpose is something else than disconcerting an opponent:
Such assertion implies that a player for instance is free to take a fifteen minutes break in the middle of a board in order to verify that his hotel reservation for the night is in order because he discovers that some reservation time limit is about to expire?

Exaggerating? Yes of course, but I think we should agree that the important word in Law 74B4 is "unnecessarily" and not the specific purpose.

[Jeremy69A]

If the hesitation is indeed devious then:
Step 1 is to explain to the player that this is not acceptable and also upsets other players.
Step 2, if he choose to ignore Step 1 or argue you are infringing his human rights is to adjust, if the circumstances merit it, and issue a PP.
Step 3 is to invite him to play his future games in the park or the local William Hill's rather than the club.

[nige1]

 pran, on 2011-July-07, 03:45, said:

The question of regularly hesitating for the main purpose of maintaining a constant tempo (during auction and/or play) was raised some years ago by a player (top class) in Norway, and the clear answer was that such hesitating is definitely illegal.

 pran, on 2011-July-07, 05:11, said:

It certainly is not. It means that you will delay all your calls and all your plays so that you for each of them spend the time anticipated to be used on the one demanding the longest time for deciding what to call or what to play.

This is a clear violation of Law 74B4: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

("Play" is here to be understood according to definition 4 on the term: The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board.)

Anticipating an assertion that prolonging the play unnecessarily is legal when the purpose is something else than disconcerting an opponent:
Such assertion implies that a player for instance is free to take a fifteen minutes break in the middle of a board in order to verify that his hotel reservation for the night is in order because he discovers that some reservation time limit is about to expire?

Exaggerating? Yes of course, but I think we should agree that the important word in Law 74B4 is "unnecessarily" and not the specific purpose.

IMO, the director should apply common sense in this matter. It is reasonable, sometimes, to take time to think things out but you cannot be allowed to tank for a long time before every action and instantaneous play can also be an obvious break in tempo.

Hence, IMO, "unnecessarily prolonging play" means "prolonging play for no good bridge reason". If so, then "maintaining an even tempo" is a not only a legitimate bridge reason for taking a second or two. It is also mandatory. I'm not disagreeing with Sven. I'm just stating the obvious.

[blackshoe]

I often feel, perhaps wrongly, that many players and directors arbitrarily define "in tempo" as "2-3 seconds" or something close to that. If it usually takes you 4-5 seconds to decide what to do, then "in tempo" for you is 4-5 seconds. There's also the question, whatever the normal tempo is, how much variation is permitted. ± one second? Two? I think you don't get into "not in tempo" much before ± 3-4 seconds, but I suppose that's also subject to debate, and may depend on the particular circumstances. Of course, there's also the question of how accurate players' time sense is. To which my usual answer is "not very".

[pran]

 nige1, on 2011-July-07, 05:31, said:

IMO, the director should apply common sense in this matter. A player cannot be alowed to tank for a long time before every action. But instantaneous play can also be an obvious break in tempo.

Hence, IMO, "unnecessarily prolonging play" means "prolonging play for no good bridge reason". If so, then "maintaining an even tempo" is a not only a legitimate bridge reason for taking a second or two. It is also mandatory.

Well said!

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-07, 05:51, said:

I often feel, perhaps wrongly, that many players and directors arbitrarily define "in tempo" as "2-3 seconds" or something close to that. If it usually takes you 4-5 seconds to decide what to do, then "in tempo" for you is 4-5 seconds. There's also the question, whatever the normal tempo is, how much variation is permitted. ± one second? Two? I think you don't get into "not in tempo" much before ± 3-4 seconds, but I suppose that's also subject to debate, and may depend on the particular circumstances. Of course, there's also the question of how accurate players' time sense is. To which my usual answer is "not very".

If the situation (auction or play) is such that "nobody expects you have anything to think about" then an immediate call or play is definitely not a break in tempo. (Example: Pass - 1NT - pass - 3NT - pass - pass - ?)

[blackshoe]

Around here, that particular problem rarely arises, because by the time the bidding gets around to you (if it ever does) the other three have already picked up their bidding cards.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Around here, that particular problem rarely arises, because by the time the bidding gets around to you (if it ever does) the other three have already picked up their bidding cards

And do the bidding box regulations cover positions where the auction has ended without a final pass? There was a school of thought that the auction had not finished but if so there will be millionsw of unfinished auctions out there!

[semeai]

 pran, on 2011-July-07, 03:45, said:

The question of regularly hesitating for the main purpose of maintaining a constant tempo (during auction and/or play) was raised some years ago by a player (top class) in Norway, and the clear answer was that such hesitating is definitely illegal.

 mjj29, on 2011-July-07, 04:16, said:

randomly hesitating in order to conceal your real hesitations isn't maintaining a constant tempo and is illegal. Making _all_ your easy calls be at least 'deliberate' rather than 'hasty' is maintaining a constant tempo, and is (imo) a good thing.

It's not the same thing, but here's a related question: I tense up mildly whenever declarer is on a guess, in an effort not to give anything away. Let's say he's led the J toward A109 in dummy and I played low, and now he's thinking. Is this illegal?

Argument for illegality: Tensing up is a clear sign of having the queen, so when I tense up without the queen and it is in any way intentional, I'm being illegally deceitful.

Argument for legality: It's clear to me he's on a guess, so I have reason to be tense whether I have the queen or not. Tensing up slightly is a fine way of coping with sitting there while declarer guesses.

[blackshoe]

 Jeremy69A, on 2011-July-07, 08:10, said:

And do the bidding box regulations cover positions where the auction has ended without a final pass? There was a school of thought that the auction had not finished but if so there will be millionsw of unfinished auctions out there!

The regulations are silent on the subject of when the bidding cards are to be picked up, and on whether alternative methods of passing (such as picking up one's bidding cards, or tapping the table) are acceptable. And yes, there are millions of unfinished auctions out there.

[pran]

 semeai, on 2011-July-07, 09:50, said:

It's not the same thing, but here's a related question: I tense up mildly whenever declarer is on a guess, in an effort not to give anything away. Let's say he's led the J toward A109 in dummy and I played low, and now he's thinking. Is this illegal?

Argument for illegality: Tensing up is a clear sign of having the queen, so when I tense up without the queen and it is in any way intentional, I'm being illegally deceitful.

Argument for legality: It's clear to me he's on a guess, so I have reason to be tense whether I have the queen or not. Tensing up slightly is a fine way of coping with sitting there while declarer guesses.

I feel that tensing up (within reason) is a legal alternative to:

Law 74B(1) said:

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

but be aware of

Law 74C(5) said:

The following are examples of violations of procedure:
[...]
5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card [...]

[nige1]

 pran, on 2011-July-07, 06:00, said:

If the situation (auction or play) is such that "nobody expects you have anything to think about" then an immediate call or play is definitely not a break in tempo. (Example: Pass - 1NT - pass - 3NT - pass - pass - ?)

In the UK, 3N would warrant a stop card. But, IMO the other calls should be be neither fast nor slow (unless you have a bridge-problem to think about).

[AlexJonson]

I'll be happy to be contradicted.

I have always assumed that playing in tempo means that you have a normal, personal tempo and pretty much follow it unless you have a Bridge reason.. (fancy language for needing to think).

Of course you may also fall asleep etc, trivial alternative to avoid trivial posts (some hope).

If you deviate from your normal tempo, you are at risk of breaching the Laws, but may have a good reason or an accidental reason.

The TD will decide, if the issue is raised.

Of course the 'needing to think' may have other consequences, but I think that is a different discussion.

[pran]

 nige1, on 2011-July-07, 14:03, said:

In the UK, 3N would warrant a stop card. But, IMO the other calls should be be neither fast nor slow (unless you have a bridge-problem to think about).

Sure. I wasn't concerned about the first pass after the 3NT bid but the closing pass in the auction (indicated by my quesry mark)

[mjj29]

 blackshoe, on 2011-July-07, 12:11, said:

The regulations are silent on the subject of when the bidding cards are to be picked up, and on whether alternative methods of passing (such as picking up one's bidding cards, or tapping the table) are acceptable. And yes, there are millions of unfinished auctions out there.

As of the last laws and ethics meeting the EBU does have such regulations (after I had to give a ruling on the subject at a congress and the 4 national TDs present were evenly split). Now we have the regulation that in the pass-out seat actions that obviously are meant to be a pass _do_ constitute a pass, but actions in earlier positions do not. However, if the opening lead is faced and the play started the auction is considered to have ended.