lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=s4h95d74ckqjt7532&w=sj9752hqj86daq8c4&n=skqt6hakdj6532ca6&e=sa83ht7432dkt9c98&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=5cppp]399|300[/hv]Matchpoints; dealer South. East was unhappy with South's approach to the game on this board at our local club, and it caused a bit of ill-feeling. After a common 5♣ pre-empt ended the auction, West led the Q♥ and declarer won and drew trumps ending in South, and advanced the singleton spade, West played the two (normal count) and declarer thought for a couple of seconds before playing the king. East ducked smoothly, guessing South to be 3-2-0-8, but declarer claimed equally smoothly. He also seemed to East quite smooth in responding to his question as to why there was a BIT before playing the king from dummy. "Because West will not have the ace here", he replied, "and the ten may make an overtrick if the defence do not switch to diamonds." The TD wasn't that happy with what he suspected was South's subterfuge, but found it hard to argue with the "demonstrable bridge reason" under 73F. South reminded the TD of one of the lawyers Sharp and Keen in one of the excellent books by King and King, but he did not let his personal view of South affect his judgement. How would you rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 If South was so clever as to think all that then he should have been very clever in designing the play and the hesitation so I'd rule against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I think that if anything the hesitation suggests South's actual holding: with three small the king is definitely the right play. He was also quite smooth in responding to East's question...South's subterfuge...South reminds one of the lawyers Sharp and KeenSince you're asking how we would rule, I think it would better to limit your initial post to the facts, and perhaps offer your own opinions for a separate post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Let me get this straight, the "break in tempo" consisted of a two second pause?Grow up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Since you're asking how we would rule, I think it would better to limit your initial post to the facts, and perhaps offer your own opinions for a separate post.Fair point; but two posts would be excessive for one issue, and the opinions were not mine, but those of the TD. I have clarified that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 South hesitation suggests that he has to make a crucial decision, and since the ♣ are solved and there is a ♥ stopper at the table, the problem could be in ♠ or ♦.I don't think that 3♠ is suggested over 1♠ and ♦ wide open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I think that if anything the hesitation suggests South's actual holding: with three small the king is definitely the right play.Certainly with three small, many declarers would work out after a couple of seconds that the king or queen gains on stiff jack and never loses. Is this therefore not the image that a short BIT conveys? With a singleton, most declarers would play the king or queen immediately, just in case West had ducked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Let me get this straight, the "break in tempo" consisted of a two second pause?Grow up...A couple is also used colloquially for a few, but let us just say that there was an agreed BIT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Certainly with three small, many declarers would work out after a couple of seconds that the king or queen gains on stiff jack and never loses.Rather more important, the king or queen gains against Ax-Jxxx by force, and sometimes also against Axx-Jxx, when the defence give away the position of the ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 i always laugh at people who talk about planning the play. i would consider myself a considerably above average player but i wouldn't consider which spade to play from dummy until it was dummy's turn to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 i always laugh at people who talk about planning the play. i would consider myself a considerably above average player but i wouldn't consider which spade to play from dummy until it was dummy's turn to play.If you don't consider which card you'll play until it's time to play it, I guess you never look 2 tricks ahead as well. So why do you consider yourself above average? Planning the play is what makes the difference between good declarers and LOLs. Whatever the holding, the K or Q is always correct unless LHO plays the Ace. So RHO based his decision on air imo. And btw, West already got the chance to signal on the 2nd ♣. Result stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 If you don't consider which card you'll play until it's time to play it, I guess you never look 2 tricks ahead as well. So why do you consider yourself above average? Planning the play is what makes the difference between good declarers and LOLs. Whatever the holding, the K or Q is always correct unless LHO plays the Ace. So RHO based his decision on air imo. And btw, West already got the chance to signal on the 2nd ♣. Result stands.I fear the point has been missed, K or Q is always correct play for declarer, but ducking smoothly is correct if declarer is 3208 to give declarer a guess second time. The diamond switch is automatic, if declarer has a singleton, he should be play the K or Q in tempo, he should be able to do this in either case, but there is really nothing to think about except deception opposite a singleton, as what does he think E will lead when he takes the A♠, must be a diamond, if declarer had any more hearts he'd have ruffed them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Rather more important, the king or queen gains against Ax-Jxxx by force, and sometimes also against Axx-Jxx, when the defence give away the position of the ace.I agree. So if there is a BIT by declarer is it not most likely to be considering this? Do you think that a declarer with a singleton would think before playing from dummy? I believe he is far more likely to think with xxx. Is thinking with a singleton not an attempt to deceive? I was quite surprised that you would even countenance South's nonsense about making an overtrick if East did not switch to a diamond, as I think this is a routine adjustment. And I predict this will be a "rare" case of jallerton agreeing with me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 And btw, West already got the chance to signal on the 2nd ♣. Result stands.I am impressed with your methods which allow you to distinguish between 5-4-3-1 and 3-4-5-1 with a discard; no doubt there are some such methods, but not at the club in question which is the only relevant thing. From a bridge point of view this is a tough play for East, not at IMPs where he will just win and play a diamond, but at matchpoints, where it looks like the auction will be the same everywhere. How do you plan to signal here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 i always laugh at people who talk about planning the play. i would consider myself a considerably above average player but i wouldn't consider which spade to play from dummy until it was dummy's turn to play.I always laugh at people who think "I" is lower case. I would consider myself a considerably above average typist, but I wouldn't consider which letter to type until I have decided whether it requires the shift key. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) I agree. So if there is a BIT by declarer is it not most likely to be considering this? Do you think that a declarer with a singleton would think before playing from dummy?I think that everyone knows that the king is the right card with xxx opposite KQ10x and no entry problems, so I can't see why anyone would spend any time thinking about doing something else. I think that given what's in dummy, it's easy to see that playing the ten can never gain an overtrick. - whatever East wins the first spade with, he will switch to a diamond. However, that does at least involve a sequence of throughts: "East must have ♠A"; "Is there any gain to playing the 10?", "No, he'll play a diamond." Is thinking with a singleton not an attempt to deceive?No, not if he was actually thinking. You seem very keen to make the leap from "He thought when in my opinion he had nothing to think about" to "He's a cheat". Edited July 13, 2011 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 , not if he was actually thinking. You seem very keen to make the leap from "He thought when I don't think he had anything to think about" to "He's a cheat".Fortunately we do not have to decide South's motives. If we decide that thinking of playing the 10 in this situation was a "demonstrable bridge reason" then we allow the score to stand. If not then we have to decide whether South could have known that thinking and playing the king could deceive. If we decide not, again we allow the score to stand. I submit that it was not a demonstrable bridge reason, and he could have been aware that the BIT would deceive. And should you judge South's motives from the response he gave, and decide whether it is plausible or contrived? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphatango Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 *ahem* Obviously, East was deceived not by declarer's hesitation, but by his partner's failure to take the no-cost play of inserting the jack, preventing this situation from arising. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 *ahem* Obviously, East was deceived not by declarer's hesitation, but by his partner's failure to take the no-cost play of inserting the jack, preventing this situation from arising. :lol:A nice play; would you regard it as SEWoG not to find it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Fortunately we do not have to decide South's motives. I agree. Why, then, did you ask "Is thinking with a singleton not an attempt to deceive?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 A nice play; would you regard it as SEWoG not to find it? That would be irrelevant, since it occured before the alleged infraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 The director may be a brilliant card-player but he should not assume that the players are. Whatever the players' relative abilities, I don't think the director should regard declarer's tenuous "bridge-reason" as valid, when declarer "could have known" that his hesitation might deceive RHO. An analogous case is where partner opens a Precision 1♥, RHO doubles and you hold a balanced Yarborough. You tank for several minutes before passing. As a result your opponents get a poor score. I don't think the director should accept your (possibly true) explanation that you were thinking of making some deceptive move in the hope of deflecting opponents from their game or slam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I agree. Why, then, did you ask "Is thinking with a singleton not an attempt to deceive?"What we actually decide is whether he "could have been aware" that thinking with a singleton "might deceive". I should have worded the question in the standard "non-cheating" convoluted manner. But if we decide that it looks like an attempt to deceive, we may then conclude that he "could have been aware", so the question is pertinent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexJonson Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 What layout(s) did East have in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 What layout(s) did East have in mind?He surmised that South had ♠ xxx ♥ xx ♦ none ♣ KQJ10xxxx and, if he won the first spade, declarer would finesse the jack of spades for an overtrick. If he ducked, declarer might misguess the spades. He was an above average club player, and made the decision pretty quickly. 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.