Deception

[MFA]

This is a very interesting thread!

 

Suppose you (west) lead a heart against 1NT-3NT. After the usual 30 sec., declarer wins in hand and plays the ♣J towards dummy's Axx.

 

E-W use smith's echo, but west has a tough problem whether or not to encourage a heart continuation.

 

Is it OK for him to take a pause to think with xxx? Well, at least partner had better follow the signal then. But what if declarer has ♣KJ10 and decides to let the jack run? Is he damaged then and entitled to a redress?

 

This situation came up recently. All players around the table were "solid experts - but not close to being world class".

- Any thoughts?

[blackshoe]

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply.

Interestingly this is not based on the lawbook quote that you made. In fact you will not find it in the lawbook anywhere.

Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick).

 

The EBU White Book addresses this question, and says that a pause by third hand at trick one, when declarer plays quickly from dummy, should not cause the TD to "entertain a claim that declarer was misled", even when third hand has a singleton. AFAIK, the ACBL does not address the question, but the practice is much the same. I don't know what other SOs do. :P

[Guest Jlall]

People who hesitate on smith should be barred from playing it. In fact smith should be barred altogether. If you play slightly out of tempo while giving a smith I guarantee I will know your holding, and so will your partner.

[blackshoe]

This is a very interesting thread!

 

Suppose you (west) lead a heart against 1NT-3NT. After the usual 30 sec., declarer wins in hand and plays the ♣J towards dummy's Axx.

 

E-W use smith's echo, but west has a tough problem whether or not to encourage a heart continuation.

 

Is it OK for him to take a pause to think with xxx? Well, at least partner had better follow the signal then. But what if declarer has ♣KJ10 and decides to let the jack run? Is he damaged then and entitled to a redress?

 

This situation came up recently. All players around the table were "solid experts - but not close to being world class".

- Any thoughts?

West should have been thinking about whether to encourage a heart continuation during that "usual 30 seconds". :P

 

The relevant Laws here are

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. 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.

and

Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.

 

In particular the second sentence in the first quoted law, and entirety of the second.

[MFA]

People who hesitate on smith should be barred from playing it. In fact smith should be barred altogether. If you play slightly out of tempo while giving a smith I guarantee I will know your holding, and so will your partner.

Yes. I play smith too, but I'm extremely aware of this problem and would much rather make a wrong signal than hesitate. (I was not at the actual table :P ). Barring smith is too harsh. Was it Hamman(?) (and later Rosenberg?) who advocated this, but I think that they are overreacting.

 

However, my question is more about whether declarer should be redressed after wrong-guessing the clubs. After all, who takes a significant pause here with the ♣Q before playing small? It was not just a fumble.

On the other hand, it's not poker :-)

 

@ blackshoe

Of course, west should have solved his problem during the 30 sec. He just didn't :-)

[pclayton]

People who hesitate on smith should be barred from playing it. In fact smith should be barred altogether. If you play slightly out of tempo while giving a smith I guarantee I will know your holding, and so will your partner.

Yes. I play smith too, but I'm extremely aware of this problem and would much rather make a wrong signal than hesitate. (I was not at the actual table :P ). Barring smith is too harsh. Was it Hamman(?) (and later Rosenberg?) who advocated this, but I think that they are overreacting.

 

However, my question is more about whether declarer should be redressed after wrong-guessing the clubs. After all, who takes a significant pause here with the ♣Q before playing small? It was not just a fumble.

On the other hand, it's not poker :-)

 

@ blackshoe

Of course, west should have solved his problem during the 30 sec. He just didn't :-)

Rodwell had a quote about Smith in his Bridgematters interview. I'm sure others have rallied against it too.

 

I play Smith and I fight myself to play in tempo at T2. If Declarer plays in rapidfire and I havent had enough time to think about the hand, I think this greatly mitigates a smith / non-smith tank however.

[Cascade]

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply.

Interestingly this is not based on the lawbook quote that you made. In fact you will not find it in the lawbook anywhere.

Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick).

 

The EBU White Book addresses this question, and says that a pause by third hand at trick one, when declarer plays quickly from dummy, should not cause the TD to "entertain a claim that declarer was misled", even when third hand has a singleton. AFAIK, the ACBL does not address the question, but the practice is much the same. I don't know what other SOs do. :P

 

 

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.  However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.  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.

 

To me such a regulation is in conflict with what is required by law.

 

As such the EBU regulation may be illegal since regulations are not allowed to be 'in conflict with the laws'

 

to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

 

If this is standard practice and is supposed to be allowed then it would be better if the law was changed rather than writing a regulation that contradicts what is required by the law.