Cogito ergo...
In a bridge monthly I found a law oriented problem:
|
|
K J 4 |
|
|
|
Q 10 9 8 |
|
A 7 6 3 |
|
|
|
6 2 |
|
|
In the final phase of hand play South led
a spot card and West – after a
small pause – followed with the nine. South “of course” put up the
king, and “of course” a while later called the Director, who asked
West whether he admits having paused. Instead of saying briefly "Yes.
I paused a while" West offered an additional excuse "I thought a
while to consider which card would best induce declarer to make a mistake".
The Director–Author deducts then one trick from the defendants explaining
that South was damaged by West's "mannerism" in the form of a
short pause without the Ace.
What a paradox ! A simple reflection (and short one at
that) is considered as a “mannerism". Such a typical occurance
during play (and this in a so called intellectual game) becomes stigmatised
and penalized by law makers and enforcers which is euphomistically
called "redress for damage".
This is by no means a particular
quirk of the Director–Author, but rather the view of the majority
lobby of world bridge organisers. A
view which as we shall prove is unjustified and damaging to bridge.
Let us for the time being forget the Bridge Law and consider this question
in the light of Natural Justice:
What was West actually punished for
? The answer is obvious albeit quite
shocking !
Only for the fact that he was unable to work out the problem quickly
enough !!
But then what kind of bridge would it be in which everyone is obliged
to think an equal period and quickly at that ?
We would be unable to enjoy the game for deprived of our Natural
Right to Think, we would become human enslaved automata.
Someone might say "Think by all means but without misleading".
But by what miracle can West at the same time think and not think ?!
Furthermore
West did not intend to "mislead", he only wanted to chose the best
card ! We must not mock West because
the problem was simple or that he had the time of a few trick earlier... for
in our turn we may encounter a problem that an expert will shrug off.
What West said about his pause sounds rather naive to be sincere.
Probably he paused because...
STOP !
It is not allowed to question a player's explanation without proof
especially when it concerns such delicate matters as someone's intentions
which are not amenable to verification. It's very offensive !
Let us presume then (only presume!) that West said to the Director
simply this "Yes. I did pause"
– and then let us reflect for what reason.
West must have been in a
similar situations before but with the Ace !
On those occasions he had to pause a while of course after which South
of course put up the King.
Certainly West was thus exasperated; "I lost not because I was
worse but because South worked out what I was thinking about. Instead of analysing
the situation and working out the odds he exploited my pause like a parasite".
It cannot even be excluded that if West was a complete novice he
might have called the Director in the conviction that it was he who was
fouled (!) but to no avail of course.
In the event West has only one solution (unless he can think like lightening):
"I must pause also with the Queen !
Then South will be unable to deduce anything from my pause. It goes
without saying that if South was a real gent this extra problem would be unnecessary.
But such is life unfortunately".
This is obviously the only sensible strategy universally adopted in
many games (how would poker look if one was not allowed think without reason).
Thus West will start to pause
with the Queen on purpose ! Not in order
to "mislead" declarer but because for him this is the only safety
move.
If he does not he will ALWAYS lose whether with a Queen (for then South
will note the lack of a pause) or with an Ace (for South will take note of the
pause).
It is impossible not to sympathize with West !
It must be obvious that he should have the right to think freely without
it being treated as misleading or mannerism, and that no one should have the
right of enquiry into the reason and content of that thought. Such was also
the view of the majority of the readers
whose letters were published in a later issue.
Our case so far was based on Natural Justice but Directors are
OBLIGED to rely on the Law. Let us then examine what is the letter of the International
Bridge Laws on this matter.
The Director–Author
quotes in support of his decision Law 16:
Players
are authorized to base their actions on information
from legal calls or plays, and
from mannerisms of opponents.
This is a very peculiar lapse – which no reader has noticed
– for this law merely states that South had the right to draw conclusions
from the opponent's pause (that is if we conclude that a pause can be termed
"mannerism"). But where is there talk of misleading an opponent
by unfounded thoughts or that a "mannerism" must conform to the
actual hand held ?
The true basis the decision
only comes from Law 73:
73D2: Intentional Variations (in tempo)
It is grossly improper to attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark
or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating
before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is
made.
73D1: Inadvertent Variations (in tempo)
Variations of tempo, manner, or the like may violate the Proprieties when a
player could know, at the time of his action, that the variation could work
to his benefit. Otherwise, inadvertently
to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself
constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation
may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.
73F2: Players Injured
by Illegal Deception
If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference
from a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who
could have known, at the time of the action, that the deception could work
to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12).
As is evident the Law–Makers did not take to heart what Gulliver
experienced in Brobdingnag:
No law of that country must exceed in
words the number of letter in their alphabet, which consists of two and
twenty. But indeed few of them extend even to that length. They are expressed
in the most plain and simple terms, wherein those people are not mercurial
enough to discover above one interpretation; and to write a comment upon
any law is a capital crime.
I have analysed the quoted paragraphs (and others) of the Law for 7
months 7 days and 7 hours. It was a gordian task of tangled insinuations and
obscurity, and if anyone doubts let him try to analyse it quicker or pass it
over to his worst enemy. It occured to me for example that every reflection
is unethical and that there are no unintentional reflections (!) but to
commentators of world repute that every reflection is ethical but... habitual
and overlong reflections are unethical (!).
I would gladly like to think for example
what would be a Director's action if he heard: "I paused merely in order
not to mislead my opponent by too short a pause" but I am too weak by
now.
Sadly I must state that the decision which interests us cannot be
overruled because West... "COULD have known... that the deception could
work to his benefit...". If it was written only that he "KNEW"
there might have been some hope; but the word used was "COULD".
What advice can we give West so that he would not be the looser whether
with a Queen or Ace...
He must learn to play more
quickly ?
But
even with a freely chosen great speed a problem will occur to him (and to
you) which requires a thought noticeable to an opponent.
He must think 3 tricks beforehand
?
But:
firstly
– he will still be cought about the reason for thinking THEN,
secondly
– the information may arrive 2 tricks earlier,
thirdly
– a smart South will work out in any case the right reason.
That South should have the duty
to pause for 10 seconds after the first lead ?
But that has already in the past: the information for the pause may not occur (as is often the case) till
later.
This is all wasted effort
– West is in a no win situation and must lose !
Not because he is worse (nor neccessarily the quickest either) but
because
THE LAW DEMANDS
IT !
Do not shrug it off as if it did not concern you. After all you are as
often South as West and what you gain as one you lose as the other !
Equilibrum is maintained but
Additional Losses exist:
– directors have additional
work being called to adjudicate on
long pauses since this
matter is on the increase
– players cannot
think in peace (even though they take part in
An intellectual game) to
the detriment of bridge.
If I dare think I must confirm beforehand whether my opponent will
work out what I am thinking about. If not – I am not allowed to think;
if yes – I am allowed to think (but for what ? I might as well show him my
cards).
The only ones satisfied are the Thoughtless ! ("Play quicker ! What are you thinking
about ? You will not reinvent the
wheel") and who knows ? is all this not a conspiracy against the Thoughtful
(this is similar to restrictions on conventions or congresses where
players are forced to play 80 deals per day).
Legal discrimination
of the Thoughtfull results in the
UNIVERSALISATION OF PLAY BASED ON AN OPPONENT'S PAUSE.
If
you observe from where he dettaches his cards that's a foul. But if you observe
how long he paused – not only is this correct but you are supported by
the Law.
Here are 10 occurances...
1)
It happened to me that in an identical situation to West's I
paused... Not in order to mislead declarer, nor whether I had left my cooker
burning back home, but – whether to give a specific card signal (low
spot card to encourage a lead from the first lead suit).
No matter that at that moment I was
not aware that my pause could "mislead" declarer. The Law states
clearly (73F2) that foul occurs when at that moment I "COULD have
known". And that is true, for although I did not know, but I COULD have.
2)
On another occasion I played a small card from dummy towards my KQ
doubleton. When RHO played low I visualised that it would be better to play
the King. If it wins then RHO holding Ace without the Jack will not know
whether I had KQ or KJ. And the less an opponent knows the better.
This took a little time. The King won
and two tricks later so did the Queen. But RHO did not risk anything ! He knew that after my pause he would only
have to call the Director if it so happened that I had KQ.
And so it happened: a trick was deducted
for my intelligent play while he was rewarded for not having to think at
all. Well... it was of course otherwise
substanciated but it came to the same.
I was taught of course that I should
have resolved the problem before leading from dummy. The lesson was not
lost on me, but till now I still have doubts that such a pause may also be questioned:
"What were you thinking about ? Was
not the play towards the king obvious ? You mislead me !".
3)
And here is another case... I was reflecting on whether I had sufficient
strength to make a jump bid to 4© after 1§ on my right. Most
would have bid 4© without hesitation,
but I – the Worst Theoretician in the World – had obviously to
work out the values (points, tricks, adjustments and such silly things). 4© was passed out and to my amazement I got
a top.
It turned out that with the hand that
LHO had, all entered in defense. My LHO, however, considered that my long
pause indicated the 4© as overstretched
and that defense was therefore not worthwhile.
Instead of thinking "What can each side make", he relied on my pause alone. Parasite !
4)
Shortly I came across this:
|
× |
|
1¨ = Negative
( 0–7 ) × = Optional (NT
with a diamond fit ) |
1¨ |
|
pass |
|
|
? |
|
Having the values to accept the double (4 diamonds and 4333 shape) I
paused 10 seconds (intentionally! intentionally!) and only then passed. Parasitic
West passed like lightening having 5 spades and only3 diamonds (they played
with 6 trumps instead of 9).
5)
What about my partner:
|
|
|
2© |
|
|
|
|
|
|
× |
|
|
|
|
pass |
pass |
|
1NT |
2¨ |
|
|
|
|
pass |
|
|
|
|
|
|
× |
|
|
|
Double
of 2¨ was penalty oriented ("Rather
pass") but I doubled after an intentional pause. That was enough ! Partner ignored our agreements and took
out the double to 2¨ with a balanced
hand. I must however state that he blushed and apologised for the foul. Me !
Two of my previous opponents did not apologise to their partners.
Would they have also apologised to me if they had guessed what I was thinking
? They violated after all ! No one can
convince me that drawing conclusions from an opponent's pause is elegant.
6)
Here is what I saw kibitzing
in the Juniors Championships in 1980:
|
|
|
7♠ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5© |
|
|
|
|
pass |
4© |
|
PASS |
× |
|
|
|
|
6♠ |
|
|
|
PASS = after a very long
trance
( for no apparent
reason )
and 2 down, for the juniors did not think
what to bid, but – what was East thinking about ?
7)
A too short a pause may also be reason
for attack:
|
W 9 x x x |
|
3¨ |
|
|
3¨ = singleton in hearts !
3 NT = with lightening speed |
|
pass |
|
pass |
|
||
|
|
1NT |
|
|
||
|
|
3NT |
|
|
West decided to lead a spade. When it turned out that South had only
10xxx in hearts, West raised an objection:
"I was mislead by the change of tempo. With such a hand 3 NT is
very doubtful and thus should not have been bid so quickly". Of course – if 3 NT had been bid after a
long pause and after a heart lead from West South was found to have KQ10x, West
would still consider himself "hard done by".
8)
In a great pairs tournament against a
leading pair this deal occured to me:
|
|
|
PASS |
|
|
1♠ = as it turned out was a psyche by Andrew PASS by North = after a long pause (he had 15) 4♠ = after a long pause (I made calculation) PASS by South = after a long pause (he had 14) PASS by West = after a long pause ! |
|
|
|
PASS |
|
|
|
|
PASS |
1♠ |
|
4♠ |
|
|
|
|
|
PASS |
|
|
Result: down four, a top
for WE.
Opponents objected to Andrew's long
pause but gained nothing. Why ?
Because there was no change of tempo, all thought about the same time of approx
10 seconds. Can we blame Andrew for pausing 10 times longer than his hand demanded
? It is sufficient to consider how absurd
this objection would have been if all the other 3 players had only paused 1
second. One could then of course blame
Andrew that he did not pass like lightening !
Andrew commited no violation. On
the contrary – he followed the Laws which recommend similar pauses.
Irrespective of the difficulty of the problem !
73E: [...] It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving
information to the opponents
by making all calls
and plays in unvarying tempo and manner.
Andrew's further merit was to prevent a foul by North ! If he had
passed quickly, then North might have (whether on purpose or not) take into account
partner's long pause. Since in the above situation the chances of extra values
were equal both for South and West, North willy–nilly had to restrict
himself to pure analysis.
9)
Parasitism of a less able opponent's
pause also belongs to the basic equipment of Expert. He may for example be
able (see Kelsey's "The Expert Mind") from a short pause or hesitation
before following to a spade lead deduce the position of the queen of diamonds
and play as if he saw all the cards. I quote:
– How
could you know that ? You could know I
had the queen of diamonds only if you had seen my hand ! –
South forbore to replay, for it was
clear that West did not comprehend the expert standard.
I do not consider this to be the true reason. I think that South did
not wish to give away his tricks mainly from shame as well as from egoism.
10)
To this day I recall the scandal caused
by well known opponents when I paused to consider the lead against 1NT holding:
♠ Q x x x x ©
J x x x.
Declarer failed miserably for he assumed
that I had equal length suits. He insisted that with such a hand IT IS NOT
PERMITTED to think since a spade lead was obvious.
The higher a player's status the greater and subtler becomes his
charge that a pause may have been misleading. Eg a supermaster may charge
another with; "What were you thinking ?
With your hand a double squeeze, isolating the menace, is obvious".
It is not hard to imagine what competence will be required with statements
of that kind and how many books of commentaries will be produced.
All the reported here monsters were the result of bad Law !
What must then be done?
Obviously one must change
the Law ....
Since it is clear that;
– it is impossible to
equalise all pauses or thoughts
– it is impossible to
prevent exploitation of an opponent's pause.
(there are already enough
problems from exploiting partner's pauses)
it is sufficient and necessary:
1) cancel all references
to "misleading" by variations in tempo
(or any hesitation understood
as a variation in tempo)
2) admit that:
A PLAYER HAS THE RIGHT TO NORMAL AND
PEACEFUL PAUSE FOR THINKING.
THE LENGTH OF THE PAUSE MUST NOT BE SUBJECT OF ANY IMPOSED RETRICTIONS
(unless such pause destroys the tournament order).
Of
course everyone has the right to change any rules in privatly organised
games. Any four players in a rubber game, a club in it's own daily duplicates,
and finally local bridge clubs in their official congresses etc.
Obviously also National Bridge Unions
have the right to make whatever changes in tournaments under their own auspices
even international ones provided that players are forwarned.
Nor should any representatives be
ashamed to put forward such proposals in the official world bridge forums,
which might hasten the change of International Laws.
However it is well known that to make such changes takes a very long
time. What can then be done right now?
In the first place:
BOYCOTT the Law which concerns
an opponent's pause:
Do not do to others what you do not want
done to yourself – do not draw conclusions from opponents pauses !
But if you do then do it at your own risk. Do not call the Director when you
did not worked out what he was thinking about (for he has a natural right to
think only not to being exploited by you).
Acting in this fashion you will behave very honourably, but others
will still focus on your own pauses (a universal boycott is utopian) so in
addition try...
APOLOGISE after every pause:
"Sorry I tranced, PLEASE do not draw any conclusions therefrom".
Now you are safe. No opponent may blame you for misleading by an unfounded
pause ! You have after all a natural right to trance, even with an Ace ! The
word "PLEASE" is necessary for otherwise they may catch you if you
trance with an Ace ! (I do not joke for I have found it in a book called
"Law Commentaries").
If an opponent states that the word "PLEASE" does not concern
him for he has the right to draw conclusions from your pause (Law 16) then reply
thus: "Certainly you have that
right, but your right to an indemnity only applies if the pause mislead
you. However I warned you".
The above method has two drawbacks;
1) you feel uneasy for in the
main you do think
2) the explanatory phrase is
rather long to say.
The best method is to...
FORWARN:
Prepare for yourself a
folded card to be placed on the table on
which will be written on
both sides the following:
Please excuse me – I OFTEN PAUSE
WITHOUT REASON !
Therefore I forwarn you that any conclusions
drawn
from my trances must be made at your own
risk !
Inside the card you may provide an explanation of this action thus:
If you think and have a reason
– you give away to the opponents your problem and hand. If you think without reason –
the Law considers this as "unethical misleading of opponents".
But you may trance... and apologise politely, warning opponents not to draw any conclusions therefrom. –
Remember that those who love to exploit your pauses will be enraged.
If they rudely attack you: "How can you pause without a reason ?!",
say this to them: "I suffer from concentration lapses" (which is a
recognised psychophisical condition).
But why excuse yourself in any case. You are fully within your rights and if
a Director decides to read white for black then appeal higher up.
At the last moment !
Analogous
problems may arise in connection with questions regarding partnership
agreements (both in bidding and leading). Did he have a good reason to ask
? Why did he "mislead" the opponent
? etc. So cut off the hydra's last
head: all above should also be taken into the realm of questions !
Besides, I think that all restrictions
on bidding must be destroyed.
Written and published in Polish
by Lukasz Slawinski in 1995 ©
Translated into English by Adam Marian Rudenski ©
This article was published first in the
bulletin of Contract Bridge Association of Poland in 1995.
|
|