Appeal in SF

[pretzalz]

What irritates me most is that you would accuse me of being unethical because I elected to lead out the Jack from KJ10. That is a fairly innocent play that 99% of the world would make, probably even if you included people who do not know how to play bridge.

To be clear, while I think that play is primarily a coffee house, I would never call it an 'unethical' coffee house. The presence of the 9 in dummy does change things, I assumed if relevant cards were missing they were in the defense. My main problem is that declarer for the most part controls the tempo of the hand, and declarer is now trying to exploit tempo to gain information. While I may use this 'gambit' to induce a cover in some situations, I try not to take inferences from the tempo[perhaps I play too much with and against people who, without malice, can't play in tempo even when they have no problem].

 

Another possibility is that LHO was thinking of something and needed a couple of seconds to finish his train of thought.

[pretzalz]

So, contrary to your claims (which are wrong even under your misunderstanding of the pip locations), my line was clearly the correct line.

 

[hv=n=sk32hdtc&w=sqhqdqck&e=s987h3dc&s=sajthdcj]399|300|[/hv]

 

If you start with the Jack, how are you going to make it? It seems to me SA, spake to K is the correct line. [After dropping the Q you have a high crossruff]

[kenrexford]

So, contrary to your claims (which are wrong even under your misunderstanding of the pip locations), my line was clearly the correct line.

 

[hv=n=sk32hdtc&w=sqhqdqck&e=s987h3dc&s=sajthdcj]399|300|[/hv]

 

If you start with the Jack, how are you going to make it? It seems to me SA, spake to K is the correct line. [After dropping the Q you have a high crossruff]

Actually, I guess you are right. I was blinded by knowing that I had the spade nine. Without it, I know I will play two rounds of spades, no matter what LHO does. If he has the stiff Queen, then I do need to play the Ace from hand first. Good point.

 

Knowing that I held the spade 9 in dummy, playing the Jack is not exploiting tempo. Further, even if playing the Jack allows Declarer to "exploit" tempo, the tempo that you are exploiting is the ability of the opponent to play smoothly under pressure. I do not see how that could be somehow unfair, as you suggest.

 

In contrast, there might be a slight hesitation, a slight speed up, or the like, but grasping at cards with a look of consternation as to what should be played, and theatrically tanking is different. That is not a play meant to cover one's thoughts. That is meant to scream out a holding that does not exist.

 

Now, I also agree with the general sentiment suggested by some that a tempo break might be able to enter the world of fair tactics, but for the risk of conveyance of info to partner. I do not see anything being malum in se about misleading the opponent if it will not benefit the partner. I could imagine hesitations switching to UI analysis quite easily. But, that is not the standard these days. If I cannot coffee-house intentionally (and as an attorney I would be damned good at it, and am damned good at it at the dinner table with friends), then LHO cannot either.

[beatrix45]

:P I am a little confused as to how one could possibly justify awarding declarer all of the last four tricks regardless of the tempo that LHO used in playing her last four cards.

 

1. declarer relies on opponents' tempo breaks at his own risk

 

2. LHO's discard of the club king was not an error. To assume she would have made such an egregious error as to discard the club king had you finessed in spades is far fetched.