[pescetom]

South opens 1NT (15-17, does not exclude 5M) in third seat and wins the auction.
West holding ♠AJ73 leads the 3, dummy is void in spades and East holding ♠96542 plays the 9 covered by T.
When East gains control he leads ♠2 and Declarer plays the Q: West thinks for 20s and plays the 7.
Declarer calls the Director and complains about the long think.
It seems unlikely that there was subsequent damage, but was there an infraction?
NS are a regular pair of advanced level.

[blackshoe]

Was there an infraction? I don't know; you tell me.

[pilowsky]

Who was doing the timing?

[pescetom]

pilowsky, on 2024-July-31, 22:17, said:

Who was doing the timing?

Electronic timing available to TD.

[sanst]

No, there was no infraction. It says nowhere in the Laws that you can't think for twenty ot more seconds, but it states very clearly that the partner shouldn't make use of the information that is given by the thinking.
The Dutch world class player Bauke Muller is notorious for his long thinking, sometimes up to twenty minutes (!). But that constituted never an infraction because his partner, Wubbo de Boer, doesn't use the information.

[Cyberyeti]

There is no infraction at this point, but if E subsequently gains the lead and has a choice between leading a spade or trying to find a different high card in partner's hand, there is a potential issue.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-01, 04:25, said:

There is no infraction at this point, but if E subsequently gains the lead and has a choice between leading a spade or trying to find a different high card in partner's hand, there is a potential issue.

East gains the lead again twice, leading spades both times to pick up AJ and then 6. But I doubt a poll would establish any Logical Alternative, given the hand and the dummy.

Which in turn makes this more interesting as a TD question: usually if they are ready messing around we can penalize the partner for use of the UI, sidestepping the awkward issue of possible deliberate conveyance.
Here it turns out there is no such use,so we have to decide on the admissibility of the delay.

I would start by checking the delay in logs, then asking West why it occurred (which nobody has suggested yet). Maybe he had to let the cat in, or had some genuine bridge problem not obvious to my mere TD brain. If so, I tell them to get on with it and I just hang around to make sure that there is no abuse of the UI, such as it is. If not, then I think there is a problem, although the Laws don't offer a clear infraction except undue hesitation and I don't think I go beyond a reprimand.

I'm a bit surprised that cyberyeti or some other worldly person had no comment on what if anything the long pause might convey. A few seconds would already be enough to confirm that we did not start with J873

[Cascade]

sanst, on 2024-August-01, 01:42, said:

No, there was no infraction. It says nowhere in the Laws that you can't think for twenty ot more seconds, but it states very clearly that the partner shouldn't make use of the information that is given by the thinking.
The Dutch world class player Bauke Muller is notorious for his long thinking, sometimes up to twenty minutes (!). But that constituted never an infraction because his partner, Wubbo de Boer, doesn't use the information.

This seems to swing on whether or not the hesitation was undue.

"Calls and plays should be made without
undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection,
and without undue hesitation or haste."

If the hesitation was "undue" there has been an infraction. Making a key play slowly is both a hesitation and could be a form of "undue emphasis".

Players are also told by the laws "...players should
be particularly careful when variations may
work to the benefit of their side."

This seems to a be situation where it could be of benefit to their side - perhaps even more so if declarer had played the king which might be from ace-king but if ace-king-queen is possible for declarer you have gained an advantage by playing slowly.

[pilowsky]

pescetom, on 2024-August-01, 01:25, said:

Electronic timing available to TD.

Because you're literally playing 'behind screens', nothing can be inferred from delays.


I only play online and it's pretty clear that pauses mean nothing.
The doorbell rang, someone in the other room called out, I dropped my mouse, my mouse ran out of battery etc etc.
These delays happen all the time and to try to infer a nefarious purpose (apologies Asterix the Gaul) is nuts.

In fact, the reason I prefer playing online is that cheating is incredibly rare and much easier to detect algorithmically.

IRL, people scowl at each other, move cards around in their hand and do all kinds of things.
The likelihood that a pair would develop a code that requires signalling in 5-10 second increments is vanishingly small.

Because of the many possible causes of delays when playing online, it makes it even harder to infer a meaning from a delay.
Not so IRL.

[smerriman]

I don't really get what declarer would be complaining about, as they seem to be better off due to the hesitation. Either West had something to think about for 20 seconds, which is perfectly possible depending on their bridge level or whatever else was going on, or they didn't and were intentionally trying to tell partner they wanted spades led. In the latter case, all they're doing is shooting themselves in the foot, because if there's a chance partner was going to lead something else, now they'll be forced to.

If you can somehow establish it was definitely the latter, then that's an infraction, but declarer should be delighted either way..

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2024-August-01, 06:10, said:

I'm a bit surprised that cyberyeti or some other worldly person had no comment on what if anything the long pause might convey. A few seconds would already be enough to confirm that we did not start with J873

A really good player will at this point figure out what hands partner and declarer have or don't have and what is the best line of play. W has to decide if he should win the trick and continue spades or switch to an other suit or duck and see what line S chooses. My problem is that I'm not a really good player and often play to fast. Maybe this W is a bit wiser.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-August-01, 06:10, said:

I'm a bit surprised that cyberyeti or some other worldly person had no comment on what if anything the long pause might convey. A few seconds would already be enough to confirm that we did not start with J873

This was EXACTLY the point I was making by saying if there was another possible holding to play partner for, there is a potential issue.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-August-02, 02:30, said:

This was EXACTLY the point I was making by saying if there was another possible holding to play partner for, there is a potential issue.

Yes, but maybe you're missing my point. Even if West was unscrupulous and wishing to reassure partner that he held the AJxx holding, not Jxxx, he would only need to pause a few seconds, not twenty.

And yet I see little to think about for an advanced level player in a trusted partnership (but maybe I'm wrong). The Q is odd, but Declarer must hold the K and partner can be counted as having started with 8+ HCP so should have no problem regaining control. The auction didn't exclude declarer holding 5 cards, but partner's choice of spades lead presumably gives count to rule that out.

The TD was satisfied by whatever West explained to him, so maybe Pilowsky is right and it was just the cat or whatever (although he's wrong in equating BBO to screens as far as timing is concerned, unfortunately it exposes individual tempo to partner without any screening at all, exactly like F2F without physical screens).

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2024-August-02, 07:07, said:

Yes, but maybe you're missing my point. Even if West was unscrupulous and wishing to reassure partner that he held the AJxx holding, not Jxxx, he would only need to pause a few seconds, not twenty.

And yet I see little to think about for an advanced level player in a trusted partnership (but maybe I'm wrong). The Q is odd, but Declarer must hold the K and partner can be counted as having started with 8+ HCP so should have no problem regaining control. The auction didn't exclude declarer holding 5 cards, but partner's choice of spades lead presumably gives count to rule that out.

The TD was satisfied by whatever West explained to him, so maybe Pilowsky is right and it was just the cat or whatever (although he's wrong in equating BBO to screens as far as timing is concerned, unfortunately it exposes individual tempo to partner without any screening at all, exactly like F2F without physical screens).

If you show us the whole hand, we can see if there's another holding for him to play for.

[mycroft]

As Cascade in particular (but others by implication) is saying, there might have been an infraction, depending on the reason for the think (73B1, among *many* others). There might have been an infraction of the "undue hesitation" even without "why". But unless the think was *intending* to pass a message (either to partner or declarer) or the kind of laziness that I comment Lamford's Chimp "conveniently" (and consistently) has, then no, there is no infraction (73D1, especially "Otherwise, unintentionally").

However, 5 or 20 seconds, it does pass information. In a club online game, you are expected to not succumb to distractions like doorbells, etc., or to make it very clear to the table (at least to the opponents) when it is necessary. If that is not "carefully avoid[ed]" (73C1), then *that* is an infraction, and if there's a logical alternative defence, that infraction should lead to adjustment (see CyberYeti's questions, L16). And, should it be egregious enough, there may be a penalty (73C2). But it had better be "lawyer-proof" levels of egregiousness, especially in a club game, if it's going to be more than a "I'm very disappointed. I thought you were better than that" comment (even if, perhaps even especially if all in earshot are equally sure of that statement's veracity).

One of the problems (that was pointed out in one of the BW threads about Toronto) is that players don't understand this, even very experienced players. And they think it's *their fault* (more correctly, the TD is treating *them* as the offender rather than their partner) if they have to think, and partner "guessed right". And it's very difficult to explain this, because that's what it looks like. I do my best with my "yes, bridge is a thinking game. You are allowed to think when you need to. But it puts partner under some obligation, and in this case we are ruling that your partner failed to meet that obligation." But it doesn't take.

Especially when the call is "he hesitated, and she bid!" (in a tone implying that obviously both were Wrong™.) Especially to the people who use that cadence, when the TD is called because they thought and partner acted. It doesn't seem wrong to them that they had to think here, but they "know" the opponents are implying it was, because that's what they imply when they call.

Were I Blackshoe here, I would end with "it's the players job to know the rules and abide by them. so it doesn't matter to me what they think, just what is." And how I wish (the first half of) that attitude was more universal. But it's not - deliberately and proudly so, in many cases. So, we do the job that's in front of us.

[mycroft]

I also note the heightened ethics policy that is being applied for the absolute top events at NABCs now (three or more day NABC+ events only), where "not only do we believe there's a LA and we're ruling against you, but we believe your action had no support *except from the UI*, and so because you did take that action, we are penalizing you." I can't find the document right now, but that's the effective gist ("particularly flagrant or egregious violations...")

The world is changing - at least slightly, at least for those "Wow. Seriously?" actions, at least at the highest level. We'll never get to Blackshoe's desired level, nor do I think we should. And I'd prefer if there was some way of reporting these (okay, there is, but exactly what we want yet) and having a "commissioner's review" instead of it being up to the directors on the floor (who, especially the point director that took the call and has to deliver the ruling(s), are possibly too heavily involved at the time for that kind of non-passionate review. Yes, it sounds like I am pulling the "that's not my job" card to get out of something I don't want to do - and you're not wrong, really - but there's a reason most organized sports leagues (even at the 10-12 level) have that structure.) But it's one step away from "heads I win, tails I break even and get a lecture I can ignore like I have for 30 years."

[Cascade]

sanst, on 2024-August-01, 01:42, said:

No, there was no infraction. It says nowhere in the Laws that you can't think for twenty ot more seconds, but it states very clearly that the partner shouldn't make use of the information that is given by the thinking.
The Dutch world class player Bauke Muller is notorious for his long thinking, sometimes up to twenty minutes (!). But that constituted never an infraction because his partner, Wubbo de Boer, doesn't use the information.

This seems to swing on whether or not the hesitation was undue.

"Calls and plays should be made without
undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection,
and without undue hesitation or haste."

If the hesitation was "undue" there has been an infraction. Making a key play slowly is both a hesitation and could be a form of "undue emphasis".

Players are also told by the laws "...players should
be particularly careful when variations may
work to the benefit of their side."

This seems to a be situation where it could be of benefit to their side - perhaps even more so if declarer had played the king which might be from ace-king but if ace-king-queen is possible for declarer you have gained an advantage by playing slowly.