pd has the ace :(

[gwnn]

Opps bid comfortably to 4M. Partner is marked with about 4-6 hcp.

 

You have a trump trick (like Ax or Kxx) and a doubleton and another trick, so you try your best and lead the doubleton. Dummy has three small, declarer thinks for a while and asks for a low card. Partner thinks considerably and finally plays low.

 

You get in with your trump trick and there you are. Partner probably has the ace of your doubleton, which is definitely UI. But what if it's pretty clear that there's no other chance for defense? Would you ever continue the suit lead? Or would you take pard to the backstage and give him a spanking?

[rogerclee]

But what if it's pretty clear that there's no other chance for defense?

If there's no other logical play, and finding this logical play was not the byproduct of UI, then I don't see how the UI matters.

[Codo]

I like the idea with spanking. (s)he had nothing to tank about.

 

But at first I would lead my second card in that suit and get my ruff.

 

I did lead that suit to get a ruff, so what do I waiting for?

[kenrexford]

I hear your problem loudly. The same thing frustrates the H. out of me.

 

That said, I think you are OK here. When partner ultimately plays small, the UI is not that partner has the Ace. The UI is that partner takes too long to make the obvious play and is dumb.

[Guest Jlall]

Hopefully partner played an encouraging card. If he forgot to even do that I would not continue. If he encouraged then him having the ace is AI.

[mycroft]

Okay, to add to the annoyance, partner has A32 playing standard, so played the 3...

 

This is a horrible situation. Frequently partner gets a "get out of UI free" card when declarer plays to the trick before dummy is fully down (or as soon as, if dummy does the "lay down the led suit last, force him to think at least a little" trick) - but it's going to take some discussion with the TD to get to the "third hand is also entitled to X seconds before playing to trick 1". On the Gripping hand, however, if partner as third hand never takes that time, we're back to the original case.

 

Funny how this situation is very similar to the other discussion about tempo.

Michael.

[jtfanclub]

You have a trump trick (like Ax or Kxx) and a doubleton and another trick, so you try your best and lead the doubleton. Dummy has three small, declarer thinks for a while and asks for a low card. Partner thinks considerably and finally plays low.

3rd hand, in face to face, I always hesitate prior to playing to the first trick. Review the auction, see if dummy has anything remotely like he promised, figure out my defense (what I'm going to play on every lead by dummy), etc. I often spend more time thinking there than on the rest of the hand combined. I think that would actually be a better time for a mandatory pause than after a skip bid.

 

At any rate, it gets rid of this issue.

[Guest Jlall]

If the signal is unclear then it becomes a very tough situation. If the bridge player can prove that there is no logical alternative to playing the suit then he can still play it, if the other side can prove there is a logical alternative (or if the defender is not capable of vocalizing why there is no logical alternative to his play), then I think it cannot be allowed (since there was UI, etc).

[cherdano]

If the signal is unclear then it becomes a very tough situation. If the bridge player can prove that there is no logical alternative to playing the suit then he can still play it, if the other side can prove there is a logical alternative (or if the defender is not capable of vocalizing why there is no logical alternative to his play), then I think it cannot be allowed (since there was UI, etc).

I agree with that, but it always leaves me with the question: Of course LHO can prove now that his play was best without good alternative, but would he have been alert enough at the table to realize that without the UI?

[kenrexford]

I sometimes wish I was allowed to carry a notepad with me. Then, I could quickly write down before I bid what I will do next based upon whatever partner bids, to protect myself from a hesitation or the like.

 

I also would like this for defense.

 

It might even be easier to simply "claim" an auction. The "claim" would go something like this:

 

LHO bids 5♠. I put down a "CLAIM" card. The "CLAIM" card would allow me to state that I will bid 6♦ whether partner passes, doubles, or makes any call below 6♦. Partner then makes his usual nonsensical tank without any reason, but my "claim" is already made, and I am protected from partner.

 

This might actually work (and not be just a joke) with computer bridge or with screens, where no message is relayed to partner. I'd imagine that some sort of immediacy would be required. Thus, for example, I might prepare a note that says, "I'm bidding 6♦," and then click "send" to the opponents immediately after LHO bids 5♠.

[EricK]

I hear your problem loudly. The same thing frustrates the H. out of me.

 

That said, I think you are OK here. When partner ultimately plays small, the UI is not that partner has the Ace. The UI is that partner takes too long to make the obvious play and is dumb.

How long should a not-dumb partner take to work out whether you have led a singleton or a doubleton?

[paulg]

I sometimes wish I was allowed to carry a notepad with me.  Then, I could quickly write down before I bid what I will do next based upon whatever partner bids, to protect myself from a hesitation or the like.

 

I also would like this for defense.

 

It might even be easier to simply "claim" an auction.  The "claim" would go something like this:

 

LHO bids 5♠.  I put down a "CLAIM" card.  The "CLAIM" card would allow me to state that I will bid 6♦ whether partner passes, doubles, or makes any call below 6♦.  Partner then makes his usual nonsensical tank without any reason, but my "claim" is already made, and I am protected from partner.

 

This might actually work (and not be just a joke) with computer bridge or with screens, where no message is relayed to partner.  I'd imagine that some sort of immediacy would be required.  Thus, for example, I might prepare a note that says, "I'm bidding 6♦," and then click "send" to the opponents immediately after LHO bids 5♠.

I've seen top players do this behind screens during a slow competitive auction.

 

I think that there is a level of trust and respect between them that makes it acceptable (to them) to play outside the Laws, but the rest of us have to comply with the constraints that the UI creates.

 

What you were going to bid/play after partner plays in tempo is irrelevant when he hesitates.

 

Paul

[Fluffy]

I disagree with Ken, first of all whatever you write has 0 importance legally.

 

But also by the time you notice you should write down something, you already have noticed an UI.

 

And if you state that you will write what you are gonna do next before passing the trolley to partner's side, I don't believe you.

[bhall]

When I was new to duplicate, I once had a partner who asked for a substitute on defense, because I had hesitated in a similar defensive situation. The director, of course, turned him down, but stayed to monitor the subsequent play. I learned from that, and I try hard not to pose ethical dilemmas for partner.

 

However, one can also try too hard to maintain tempo, not giving your bids or plays the consideration that they deserve. The solution I have found is to adopt a relatively slow tempo in general, and not give in to the temptation to make quick, automatic bids or plays. That at least reduces the number of times when I must agonize over a particular action.

[Cascade]

Hopefully you play suit-preference in trumps or a smith-echo or something and have some more information.

 

The UI only bars logical alternatives if there is no other way for this contract to go down then you are safe otherwise you better switch.

 

Maybe you can gather more information by playing your side Ace and getting a clear signal in that suit.

[Cascade]

I learned from that, and I try hard not to pose ethical dilemmas for partner.

This is admirable but I think ethical dilemmas are inevitable. You will get dealt tough hands and partner will have to deal with UI. You need to trust when this happens partner will not take account of your UI.

 

Obviously there are some pairs where this is not a problem and some pairs where this is a continual problem.