nige1 Posted June 14, 2011 Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sk875hqdj9872ckt3&w=sq43hkjtdq5cj6542&n=sjt96ha9dkt63ca97&e=sa2h8765432da4cq8&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2hdp2sp3sp4sppp]399|300|This was the deal in the original post. The play was a bit peculiar...♥2 Q K A♥9 3 ♠5 ♥J♠7 3 6 A.♠2 K 4 9[/hv]The original case that started this post is similar. Dummy had J98xx and declarer had bid the suit. There could be no possible reason for thinking whatever the holding in second seat, so there is no way declarer could have been misled, so there should be no adjustment. [hv=pc=n&s=sk875hqdj9872ckt3&w=sq43hkjtdA5cj6542&n=sjt96ha92dKQt6ca9&e=sa2h876543d43cq87&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2hdp2sp3sp4sppp]399|300| Suppose instead West feared the hand was something like this. Would West then have a bridge reason for hesitating? To defeat tthe contract, West would then need to rise with ♦A and cash [sP}Q and ♥T. West could have concluded that this layout was unlikely and ducked. Even if Frances deems such reconstructions impossible, surely South should be protected if he argues that West could have such a bridge reason for hesitating with [DI}Ax(x) but never with [DI}Qx(x)? In general, from both sides' point of view, a bridge reason more than adequate for an ordinary player may not completely satisfy a world-class player Even if I haven't got the hands and pips quite right, you get the general idea. :)..[/hv][ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 14, 2011 Report Share Posted June 14, 2011 This kind of thing is considered OK in rubber bridge, where it's every man for himself. But the Law Givers decided that duplicate bridge should be more civilized and intellectual, where we just play the cards, not psychological games. This is absolutely not true. Rubber bridge players are, for the most part, unimpeachably ethical. Probably more so than duplicate players, because they would consider it quite wrong to take another man's money through coffeehousing or other deliberately deceptive bahaviour. Not to mention that even if they weren't banned from the club, they would not find anyone willing to play with them. I am sorry that you have had this experience at rubber bridge, but I promise you that if you find another club you will be very unlikely to find similar standards there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Was this on vu graph? Often when there are screens the operator cannot see one side of the screen so you dont know whether it was defender or declarer who hesititated. That seems much the most likely explanation. If it was on BBO he was mostly like stirring his tea or something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Was this on vu graph? ...Op never confirmed that s/he determined by communication with the vugraph operator that there actually was a tank, and until s/he does that, this thread is hypothetical, and is merely a discussion of theory 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 I am completely serious. I think people should be allowed to think to mislead. They aren't according to laws though so of course trying to break rules of the game to take advantage is unethical. I just happen to think the rules of the game should be different but I certainly can see a point of them being as they are now. If one allows all manner of bluffs, a pard on defence will soon be able to learn his/her pard's mannerism tendencies... seriously unbalancing the game for pick up partnerships & declarers.Therein lies the problem. The misleading turns rapidly into illegal communication. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Now declarer elected to play 7 diamonds this is when west tanked he held q5 diam-or A5 or 54 or a54. Somebody down-voted this interesting post! Such actions may inhibit new posters. Op never confirmed that s/he determined by communication with the vugraph operator that there actually was a tank, and until s/he does that, this thread is hypothetical, and is merely a discussion of theory Glenn is right (although priate22 still poses an interesting theoretical question with a variety of answers -- see Frances Hinden's post). Pirate22 could ask the viewgraph operator to confirm the alleged hesitation. However, no director seems to have been called to establish the complete facts, so we mustn't cast aspersions on the players. I am completely serious. I think people should be allowed to think to mislead. They aren't according to laws though so of course trying to break rules of the game to take advantage is unethical. I just happen to think the rules of the game should be different but I certainly can see a point of them being as they are now. Somebody down-voted this reasonable suggestion! The big problems occur not so much when one tanks, as there there is often more than one possible reason, but when one plays (or bids) unusually brisky compared to one's normal tempo. A lot of players also "flip" a singleton out of their hand as they play it. The only real solution to these sorts of things is to play & bid in tempo as much as u can, and occasionally allow a tank to pass by without comment. If one allows no tanks, thinking goes away -- bad idea. If one allows all manner of bluffs, a pard on defence will soon be able to learn his/her pard's mannerism tendencies... seriously unbalancing the game for pick up partnerships & declarers. Therein lies the problem. The misleading turns rapidly into illegal communication. But wickedbid1 and billw55 seem to have won the argument :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.