Iceland. Mixed pairs

[vigfus]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skj109ha7dk985c972&w=s83h1095dq7632cq108&e=sq4h8643da104cakj6&s=sa7652hkqj2djc543]399|300|Scoring: 110 N/S

W - N - E - S

------- 1♣ X

2♣ 2♠ All Pass[/hv]

East cashes AK of ♣, Ace of ♦, and plays club to wests queen. Returns ♥and north cashes the Ace. Defence has had 4 tricks.

Now easts says upload "Isn't it over ?", but immediaetly says "No - I am sorry"

North is experienced player, East is not very experienced.

North decides the only reason East made this remark, is that he does not have the ♠ queen, then plays spade to the ace and finesses the jack. 8 tricks. 110 N/S

North calls TD and says that if that remark had not come, he would sure have played for spades 2-2 and made 9 tricks.

My first thought was to let score stand because East apologized immediaetly, but after having asked for assistance, I decided to give N/S 9 tricks, but I was not happy about north's argument.

North knows laws very well, he was both eating the cake and keeping the cake. Finessing for the ♠Queen and if that does not work, then call TD and get the 9th trick by ruling.

Perhaps the correct ruling would have been 110 for N/S and -140 for E/W

 

Please give me your opinion in this matter.

[bluejak]

Just because North is experienced is no reason he should suffer. I can see no justification for a split score.

 

I think, Vigfus, you worry too much about what you see as fair: just let the Law run its course. You have to decide whether he should be misled by the remark, in which case you adjust, or not, in which case you do not.

 

Nowhere in the Law book does it say "the double shot is illegal". Yes, lots of people think it is, but until that it written into the Laws, it is not true. The law-makers have given us Law 12C1B: that is the only time to split the score for a double shot, if that Law applies. But do you really believe that finessing the spade is a SEWoG?

[jdonn]

I don't know how this should or shouldn't impact the ruling or whether it depends on north's level, but east can't have a singleton spade given that clubs were bid and raised (unless he is specifically 1444 and that likely isn't a 1♣ opener for most people). But regardless of that I do think east's comment was (unintentionally) deceptive and caused north to go wrong.

 

It's funny but "No - I am sorry", when said immediately, should be a clue that east has the queen, so maybe the clues are a wash and declarer should simply be confused.

[campboy]

I think the legal position here is rather interesting. Firstly, law 73F says:

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage

to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player

has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an

opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who

could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to

his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

So, if North believed that East's remark meant that he didn't have the queen he has drawn a false inference from an extraneous remark. A strict reading of this law would suggest that we should therefore adjust the score whether or not we consider that inference a sensible one to draw.

 

----------------------------------------

 

Secondly, I'd like to make several simplifying assumptions to be able to ask a different question (to which I do not know the answer). Now it seems to me that the most likely reason for East's remark was that he expected North to have five spades -- in which case he might equally well make the remark with Qx, xx or x, but not Qxx. Forgetting about clues from the bidding for the moment (to get to the situation I'm interested in), North might think as follows. Before the remark, East could equally well have Qx, xx, x or Qxx; each of North's three possible lines wins against two of these, so North has no reason to chose any line over any other; if he chooses a line at random he will make 2/3 of the time against East's actual holding of Qx. Now East makes the remark, and North concludes that he does not have Qxx but might equally well have any of the others. That means that finessing East for the queen now only works against one possible holding; finessing West or playing for the drop works against two. So now North chooses one of the two remaining lines at random; since East actually has Qx, North's chance of picking a working line has dropped to 1/2. So it seems there is damage from the remark (if North picks the wrong line), yet 73F does not apply, since the inference North drew (that East did not have Qxx) was correct. Is there any legal basis to adjust the score?

[greenender]

I have to say that as a player I really hate these situations. My philosophy is to claim wherever possible (except against some players, where experience or instinct suggests that claiming will waste, rather than save, time).

 

If I am not in a position to claim, but a defender says something like "are we playing these for a reason?", then I really hate having to work out what that means for my possible lines of play.

 

As a TD I am therefore inclined to very tolerant of players who claim to be misled. It seems to me that a lot of players have an instinctive reaction that a player who makes such a remark cannot have a key card, and for the most part, since players do not generally set out to deceive, that reaction is justified. I am not therefore inclined to rule against a player who may have been deceived, just because deeper analysis may lead to a conclusion that he should not have been deceived. For most players the remark seems to switch off the "deeper analysis" function.

 

As far as campboy's question goes, I don't think this happens much in the real world. I appreciate that he was adapting the situation in the OP to raise the question. Perhaps an invented example may have been better, because I can't see why E should assume that N had five trumps, nor why N should assume that such an assumption on E's part was the reason for E initially thinking that his side had no further interest in the deal.

 

But to answer his question, I think that declarer has been materially misled if the ultimate conclusion he draws, leading to a choice of the unsuccessful line, reduces his chances of getting the position right, regardless of whether it depends on an intermediate conclusion which is in fact warranted.

[axman]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skj109ha7dk985c972&w=s83h1095dq7632cq108&e=sq4h8643da104cakj6&s=sa7652hkqj2djc543]399|300|Scoring: 110 N/S

W - N - E - S

------- 1♣ X

2♣ 2♠ All Pass[/hv]

East cashes AK of ♣, Ace of ♦, and plays club to wests queen. Returns ♥and north cashes the Ace. Defence has had 4 tricks.

Now easts says upload "Isn't it over ?", but immediaetly says "No - I am sorry"

 

 

Please give me your opinion in this matter.

East has suggested that play be curtailed. This is a claim and that he retracted his suggestion does not retract the claim.

[jdonn]

East has suggested that play be curtailed. This is a claim and that he retracted his suggestion does not retract the claim.

Disagree. East asked south if he felt like suggesting play be curtailed, but east didn't suggest it.

[vigfus]

Thanks David. This board has gone thorugh much discussion here in Iceland, Some say 8 tricks because of east's apologize, Other say 9 tricks because east is misleading declarer. I think the correct ruling is 9 tricks.

Law 12C1B does certanly not fit here, so no split score.

A interesting question came up. What should TD do if declarer calls for TD after easts remark ?