[lamford]

---

Table Result 6S= Lead ♥2 NS+1430

This hand caused considerable ill-feeling at a North London club this week, but the TD seemed unable to act. Before he passed, East asked the meaning of the auction and established that 5S showed two key cards with the queen and that 5H would have shown two without. West found the killing lead of a small heart and South, who looks and behaves like SB, won in dummy, and played the ace, king of spades and queen of clubs in quick succession. West, an elderly gentleman with failing eyesight who had suffered a mild stroke recently, expecting all the trumps to be drawn, ruffed the third of these with the jack of trumps. His partner quickly asked "No clubs, partner?" but the damage had been done. SB was on to it like a flash. "I think we need the TD" he said, "but I am sure that he will rule that it is a non-established revoke, and West can correct it". "However, the jack of spades will become a major penalty card." The TD came and was inclined to designate the jack of spades as "other than an MPC" but the law for correcting a revoke did not have that provision, as SB was quick to point out under 62B1, and he was forced to side with SB.

West won the ace of clubs, but was forced to exit with the MPC and declarer claimed. SB was not content with his little coup, and rubbed salt into the wound by saying to West, "I don't believe in a higher power, but someone up there was punishing you for taking advantage of those ludicrous questions about the key-card responses", he chortled. "Your partner practically waved the queen of hearts in your face." The TD gave SB a DP for this remark, but was forced to allow the score to stand. How would you have ruled?

[mgoetze]

There is no law saying that when declarer plays fast you must also play fast - if you do so anyway it is at your own risk.

[gwnn]

Isn't this just the Colour Coup? I remember jdonn wrote that he considers it unethical but people agreed that there was no rule against it.

[billw55]

I would have ejected this SB from the club long ago for general jerkiness. Having failed to do so, this score must stand.

[jbaptistec]

This hand is one of the reasons I am for the use of 4-color decks. Anyway, the score must stand.

[billw55]

Ditto on four color decks. Where can you get them these days? I can only quickly find poker size ones with the blue diamonds.

[lamford]

mgoetze, on 2015-November-19, 07:50, said:

There is no law saying that when declarer plays fast you must also play fast - if you do so anyway it is at your own risk.

It might be an infraction, however, under 74C7:

"varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent."

The problem is that SB's intention was to induce an error, not to disconcert West.

[Phil]

I can't tell if I'm trying hard enough to win when I don't resort to tactics like this.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-November-19, 12:04, said:

It might be an infraction, however, under 74C7:

"varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent."

The problem is that SB's intention was to induce an error, not to disconcert West.

Could it be a violation of 73D1? Assuming SB played faster than his normal tempo, was he "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side"? If he played quickly precisely to try to induce an error like this, that seems to be the precise opposite of what this Law requires. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, SB would make that argument. I wouldn't even be surprised if we could find an earlier Lamford post where he actually did so.

Playing cards like this seems to me to be the bridge equivalent of the scene from the classic cartoon where Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are going back and forth saying "Rabbit Season" and "Duck Season". Bugs suddenly switches to "Rabbit Season", Daffy reflexively responds "Duck Season", and Elmer shoots Daffy. To paraphrase DD, SB is "dethpicable".

[lamford]

gwnn, on 2015-November-19, 08:14, said:

Isn't this just the Colour Coup? I remember jdonn wrote that he considers it unethical but people agreed that there was no rule against it.

It will be interesting to see whether gnasher thinks SB's behaviour is legally and morally correct.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-November-19, 14:04, said:

If he played quickly precisely to try to induce an error like this, that seems to be the precise opposite of what this Law requires.

I think the purpose of 73D1 is when the change of tempo is used to convey information to partner, or to deceive an opponent, not to induce an error by someone playing too quickly. I hope that you would not punish someone who quickly led a singleton (or doubleton) towards KJ in dummy at trick two, to make an opponent have to make a quick decision not to give away the position. In my view, 73D1 only really concerns itself with deceptive hesitations, or leads of a singleton at the speed of light.

[nige1]

Lamford quotes TFLB L74C7, which said:

The following are examples of violations of procedure ... varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

lamford, on 2015-November-19, 12:04, said:

The problem is that SB's intention was to induce an error, not to disconcert West.

SB might have known that his tempo-variation could sufficiently disconcert a defender so as to induce a revoke.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-November-19, 16:35, said:

It will be interesting to see whether gnasher thinks SB's behaviour is legally and morally correct.

The legality of SB's behavior is generally difficult to discern (the stories generally fall into the grey areas of the Laws, which is the whole point). But morally, SB is about as decrepit as they come, IMHO.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-November-19, 12:04, said:

The problem is that SB's intention was to induce an error, not to disconcert West.

One way of inducing an error is to disconcert.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-November-20, 12:48, said:

One way of inducing an error is to disconcert.

But was East disconcerted? I think yes, but because of the error. His error, so can we really pin this on declarer?

[gombo121]

While I agree that the trick played by SB is rather low, I am also inclined to share his sentiment that the question about possible meaning of 5h was completely out of line.

[Trinidad]

FWIW, I think a color coup is perfectly fine in a competitive game of bridge.

If someone has poor eyesight, he can state so up front and I will call every single card I play, if that helps. So, in this case, I will say "Ace of spades", "King of spades", "Queen of clubs" as I play my cards, one at the time. If the opponent plays the ♠J then that is still his problem, not mine.

Would I do this at the elderly home? No, but that is one of the reasons why I rarely play there.

Edit: I would only try something like that while playing my cards in the normal tempo.

Rik

[barmar]

Even people with normal eyesight can be tricked by a color coup.

If a player is close to blind, they'll usually ask for cards to be called out. If they just have slightly poor eyesight, like many elderly people, this isn't so common. But pulling a color coup on them seems like poor sportsmanship.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-November-19, 16:35, said:

It will be interesting to see whether gnasher thinks SB's behaviour is legally and morally correct.

Why me, particularly?

Anyway, not of course it's not legal to vary your tempo in the hope of inducing a mistake. 73D1 applies in all situations, regardless of whether you think it should.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-November-22, 16:21, said:

Why me, particularly?

Anyway, not of course it's not legal to vary your tempo in the hope of inducing a mistake. 73D1 applies in all situations, regardless of whether you think it should.

Because you thought the BIT with three small spades (when the ♠J was led) in another thread was both legally and morally correct. That was, I presume, because you disagreed (as do I) with the White Book as to what constitutes a demonstrable bridge reason.

When someone includes "of course" in a statement, they are often on weak ground, and I do not agree that there is any law which makes it illegal to increase your tempo in the the hope of inducing a mistake. 74D7 prevents you varying your tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. None of the definitions I have found of "disconcerting" in the dictionary includes "inducing a mistake". I have never encountered a ruling for unduly fast play and 73D1 also makes it clear that it is not always required to maintain an unvarying manner. Fast play cannot (in theory) work to the benefit of your side, as there is no requirement on the opponent to play at the same speed, as mgoetze points out, so the requirement to be particularly careful does not apply.

Unless I am misinterpreting your post because I could not quite piece together the double negative.