Is it ok to think?

[Helmer]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s65hqj4da9854c1075&e=sqj83hk1053d102ckj8]266|200|Scoring: MP

South opened 1 NT - all pass, partner lead ♠ 4, declairer planned - and played a small - to you Jack and won by the Ace. South plays ♦ K, your partner a small, dummy a small - and now its your turn...... Is it ok to think 20-30 seconds before playing either 10 or 2 of ♦ ?[/hv]

 

 

Well I know - that its possible to make a signal with a high ♦ to tell partner that the lead was excellent.

 

If you are such a good player that you play with cardings like this, shouldn't you spend the time while declairer is planning his/her play, to figure that out? - It looks quite obvious that decairer would play a ♦ soon.

 

After the game I asked why it took so long to play that ♦, I had to tell my partner that it was a good lead, the east man replied.

Well I am sure his partner understood that he was trying to make a signal of a kind, as she 2-3 tricks later saw that he only had 2 ♦ - 10 and 2. What was there to think about - ohhhh he is trying to tell me something.

 

I play with this signals as well - but I plan them in due time.

 

Helmer

[Elianna]

This is something to think about before playing to trick one.

 

I also think that the hesitation doesn't necessarily imply what you think it implies. In fact, if they play Smith, I'd say it was the opposite. The guy didn't really like the lead, but didn't like anything better. Same if suit-preference.

[HeartA]

It's OK to think, but 20-30 seconds is a little too long.

[1eyedjack]

It is always OK to think if you have something to think about, and to think as long as you like. The only question arising is whether the partner of the thinker chooses from among logical alternatives a play that is suggested by the hesitation, and whether damage results from that act.

 

It is not OK to think if you know what to play but are thinking purely to stress that the card is a significant signal to which partner needs to pay particular attention.

[Gerben42]

Now if the trick went ♦J, small small and NOW you think that would be misleading declarer, since you could have known at the time that it might mislead declarer.

[Helmer]

I am not talking about missleading at all.

 

I am asking if it is ok to think in this situation.

 

And I am aware of that it is legal to think all you need if its need etc....

 

For my self - I would take that break - already in 1st trick, and not now.

[glen]

The first question i have is what is the real level of the thinking player?

[Helmer]

He could be around the 20 best in the country (Thailand).

[kenberg]

Some assumptions: They are in fact playing Smith, right side up, so that the ten would indicate a liking for the lead. Of course it might be taken to mean that even if they are not playing Smith, but that gets a little fuzzy. Besides count (sort of pointless) it could show an entry in hearts rather than clubs, I suppose, for the spade lead thorugh (with a different holding). So I don't much like the hesitation if they are not playing Smith.

 

If they are playing Smith, you may wish to allow for a badly phrased explanation that should have been: "We are playing Smith but I had to think a bit to be sure I could afford the ten." At any rate, again if they are playing Smith, the ten sends the message with or without the hesitation. Although it could be: "Look, this ten is not a stiff. I like the lead." But if another D was played at trick 3 this last aspect doesn't matter.

 

So this leads me to think that they are not playing Smith or you would not be upset. I think I agree with you that in that case the hesitation is at least a bit, and maybe more, tacky. It's sort of "I am signalling, but really we are not playing any methods that make this clear so please try to work it out knowing that it is definitely a signal."

 

Or maybe he had to remember if they were playing Smith, reverse Smith, or something lese. Depends a little on how practiced the partnership is.

[glen]

He could be around the 20 best in the country (Thailand).

In that case he might have 30 seconds of ISP problems, so I would not draw any conclusion from any pause.

[keylime]

I agree with Glen, with this additional comment:

 

I'm of the persuasion that "if is hesitates, shoot it" is really bad for bridge. I tend to take my time at trick 1 and plan some sort of defense. For some reason tho, I tend to get "picked on" when I fail to follow to a trick and get a discard - I've had probably 4-5 director calls just on me thinking about a discard in the last year. Maybe it's due to the impatience of the player, maybe it's due to them trying to intimidate me for whatever reason, who knows - in each case I let them gripe and moan and then after they get done I ask for the player memo. That right there shuts them right up.

[mcphee]

I see no reason why a defender can't take a bit of extra time after declarers play at trick 2. This player is faced with 3 discards on D and needs to start planning now. Isn't this the time you are supposed to consider these things?

[pigpenz]

generally at the table one can say I have no problem :) but i have not seen anyone do that online even with a singleton

[temp3600]

This player is faced with 3 discards on D and needs to start planning now. Isn't this the time you are supposed to consider these things?

If you can see you're going to discard several times when a suit is run, isn't it more logical to take the thinking time when you're just about to make the first discard?

[Echognome]

I think this is certainly an "it depends". Players are allowed time to think as long as they aren't trying to deceive declarer through that hesitation. (Note the usual caveat of being given time to think before your play to the first trick.) As Gerben has mentioned, there are certain situations for which none of us would have allowed the hesitation. Such as if you had played a low card through RHO. (At least in EBU land, there is case law that whether or not to peter is NOT a bridge reason to think.) In general, players can take inferences at their own risk. So if called to the table that would be my first reaction. However, I might ask East why he was thinking and whether or not he knew that it could affect declarer.

[cherdano]

(At least in EBU land, there is case law that whether or not to peter is NOT a bridge reason to think.)

What? In my world, this is obviously a bridge reason to think. If declarer doesn't understand my problem, then that's his fault.

Or was this ruling a try to make it illegal to transmit UI to partner? Transmitting UI isn't illegal, use of UI is...

[cherdano]

I am not talking about missleading at all.

 

I am asking if it is ok to think in this situation.

If there is no misleading of declarer involved, and you have a bridge reason to think, then it is ok to think. If there is a UI problem, you should complain about the use of UI instead.

[kenberg]

Some years ago a relative beginner was asking about various carding ideas and I explained that if you play high-low quickly it shows count while high-low slowly shows suit preference. Of course I was roundly scolded by others who worried that I might be taken seriously. Maybe this person grew up to become your opponent.

[neilkaz]

Yes it's OK to think, but not this long and the "thoughtful" one should be at the mercy of what ever the TD decides.

[Helmer]

I see no reason why a defender can't take a bit of extra time after declarers play at trick 2. This player is faced with 3 discards on D and needs to start planning now. Isn't this the time you are supposed to consider these things?

You should be able to see that problem already in the 1st trick, why not plan your discards while declarer is planning - I should think its quite surprising if declarer doesnt play a diamond in trick no. 2.

Or simply wait until you have the problem - whenever you run out of diamonds.

[Finch]

(At least in EBU land, there is case law that whether or not to peter is NOT a bridge reason to think.)

What? In my world, this is obviously a bridge reason to think. If declarer doesn't understand my problem, then that's his fault.

Or was this ruling a try to make it illegal to transmit UI to partner? Transmitting UI isn't illegal, use of UI is...

To clarify:

 

The case law referred to is when there is a suit laid out something like this:

 

AQ10x

 

 

Jx

 

 

Declarer runs the jack of the suit and RHO thinks for a while before playing low. This makes declarer believe that the king is off-side, whereas in fact RHO has four low in the suit. When asked why it took him so long to follow to the club, he says 'oh I was just deciding whether to give count or not'. The case law referred to is that you will get ruled against for deceiving declarer by thinking with no good bridge reason to think.

 

Similarly declarer leads a (possibly) singleton from hand towards the KJ in dummy and you think for a while before following low. It transpires you don't have the ace, you were 'just deciding whether to give count or not'. Same ruling.

 

Sure, it is possible to have a hand where deciding whether to peter or not is a genuine bridge reason. But _saying_ you were deciding whether to peter or not in a position where it is clear declarer will be deceived into thinking you have a different problem it not a genuine bridge reason.

[whereagles]

Frances' example is right on target. There are many others where a player has to do the thinking of whether to signal or not BEFORE the situation occurs.

[Echognome]

(At least in EBU land, there is case law that whether or not to peter is NOT a bridge reason to think.)

What? In my world, this is obviously a bridge reason to think. If declarer doesn't understand my problem, then that's his fault.

Or was this ruling a try to make it illegal to transmit UI to partner? Transmitting UI isn't illegal, use of UI is...

Frances said it better than I did. What I meant is that if you have a decision (e.g. finesse/drop or which card to finesse) and the next player stops to think when it is not relevant to THIS trick and MAY DECEIVE you, then don't you think there's a problem?

 

I think I've only ever called the TD once on it. (and was ruled in my favor)

[1eyedjack]

15 to 14 (at the time of writing).

I don't think I have ever seen a poll so evenly divided.

[kenberg]

Despite commenting, I didn't vote. I'm not sure I have enough information to give an up or down vote, although I am not happy with the prolonged hesitation. There are, from time to time, people that I am unhappy with but about whom I am not prepared to say anything more. That seems to fit here.