A Bit Deceived

[sfi]

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.

 

Would declarer need a short break to work that out? The hesitation seems more legitimate with a singleton than with 3 small.

[mrdct]

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple:

 

• No demonstrable bridge reason; and
  
• Could've known it could work to his advantage.
  

I think we tick both boxes here, so I'm adjusting the result to 5♣-1.

[gnasher]

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple:

 

• No demonstrable bridge reason; and
• Could've known it could work to his advantage.

I think we tick both boxes here, so I'm adjusting the result to 5♣-1.

 

If declarer had xxx and East had taken his ace, would you make the same argument?

[AlexJonson]

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.

 

OK, a high risk MPs decision, but not unreasonable.

 

I'm inclined to think declarer needs to decide how to play the spades before leading his singleton. He has something to think about - the fact that the contract is hopeless - but this is probably not an acceptable way to play for a defensive error, although likely unintended.

[Free]

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.

I know why East should/shouldn't duck, but the hesitation doesn't suggest a 3 card ♠ at all imo. What reason could he possibly have with a 3=2=0=8 to think? You play the Q/K, go back to your hand with a ♦ ruff and play ♠ again. If the hesitation suggests anything, and I'm not saying it does, it suggests a singleton because in that case he only has 1 chance to finesse the Jack. Either way, whatever declarer holds, the Q/K is always best, and any reason for thinking about the situation will result in playing the Q/K anyway. If everyone plays smoothly and West shows an odd number of ♠s like he did, East can basically flip a coin to decide what to do.

 

The reason why East decided to duck is not for any bridge reason, but it's based on a hesitation by his opponent, which doesn't even suggest what East thought it suggested. If he would've played the Ace and opener appeared to have a 3=2=0=8, then he would have a point, but now he plays the exact opposite of what he should do opposite the suggested holding and complains afterwards.

[Cyberyeti]

I know why East should/shouldn't duck, but the hesitation doesn't suggest a 3 card ♠ at all imo. What reason could he possibly have with a 3=2=0=8 to think? You play the Q/K, go back to your hand with a ♦ ruff and play ♠ again. If the hesitation suggests anything, and I'm not saying it does, it suggests a singleton because in that case he only has 1 chance to finesse the Jack. Either way, whatever declarer holds, the Q/K is always best, and any reason for thinking about the situation will result in playing the Q/K anyway. If everyone plays smoothly and West shows an odd number of ♠s like he did, East can basically flip a coin to decide what to do.

 

The reason why East decided to duck is not for any bridge reason, but it's based on a hesitation by his opponent, which doesn't even suggest what East thought it suggested. If he would've played the Ace and opener appeared to have a 3=2=0=8, then he would have a point, but now he plays the exact opposite of what he should do opposite the suggested holding and complains afterwards.

Yeah, but if declarer has a singleton, this line of playing the 10 is completely bananas as he knows a diamond is going to come back whether the 10 loses to J or ace without the hollywood stuff.

 

If he has 3 and trusts his opponent to duck with Axx, he might think "shall I just play the 10 and get it over with" then the Ax in front case occurs to him and he plays high.

[keledor]

If the facts are as stated then score stands.

 

Declarer did not hesitate with a singleton - he'd played it and he is looking at KQ106 on the table.

 

Taking a couple of seconds to think in any situation except where I am next to play and hold a singleton isnt unreasonable.

 

Declarer considering whether to play the 10 even though it is a poor play isnt deceitful and would I even notice or complain about it - god no.

 

The only option by a director is to call South a liar and a cheat on a 2 second hesitation - guess what it ain't gonna happen.

[lamford]

If declarer had xxx and East had taken his ace, would you make the same argument?

No, there would be a bridge reason; and for a player of his ability, it would take a couple of seconds to realise the king was always right. Are you really saying that you believe that South was telling the truth with the hogwash about making an overtrick? And once you decide he was lying, it is an easy step to decide he is a cheat. And substitute "could have been aware" and "could have been a" to make the sentence legal. For me it was the response to East's question that was the damning evidence, not the BIT itself.

[Free]

Yeah, but if declarer has a singleton, this line of playing the 10 is completely bananas as he knows a diamond is going to come back whether the 10 loses to J or ace without the hollywood stuff.

Like I said before, playing the T is always bananas! ;) That doesn't mean the player realizes this instantly. However, with a 3 card ♠ there's nothing to think about because you can finesse the Jack later on. So the hesitation definitely doesn't suggest declarer having a 3=2=0=8, which destroys any argumentation from East to correct the score. Therefore I wouldn't change the score.

[lamford]

Like I said before, playing the T is always bananas! ;) That doesn't mean the player realizes this instantly. However, with a 3 card ♠ there's nothing to think about because you can finesse the Jack later on. So the hesitation definitely doesn't suggest declarer having a 3=2=0=8, which destroys any argumentation from East to correct the score. Therefore I wouldn't change the score.

With a singleton spade in South, the only line is to rise with the king, hoping that West was briefly suffering from acute attention order. But South can add to his chances by playing a slow king, as this might a) give East time to duck smoothly or b) make it seem that South has xxx, to an average player.

 

Those that claim that South doesn't realise instantly that the 10 is a stupid play with a singleton are wrong. South always intended to play the king, but saw an advantage in playing it slowly. And it is the answer to the question from East that gives it away. But you can interpret it two ways, just like Bentley's "Let him have it".

[gnasher]

No, there would be a bridge reason; and for a player of his ability, it would take a couple of seconds to realise the king was always right. Are you really saying that you believe that South was telling the truth with the hogwash about making an overtrick?

 

I wasn't there when he said it, and I have no idea who he is (except that it obviously wasn't you), so I can't judge the veracity of his statement. I'm certainly prepared to believe that there are players would need to think for a couple of seconds with x opposite KQ10, but not with xxx opposite KQ10.

 

I am sure that you would not have to think with either holding. Given that, I'm puzzled that you seem so certain that you know which holdings would, for this particular player, provoke a moment's thought and which would not.

 

Finally, the more you use words like "hogwash", "nonsense" and "subterfuge", the less inclined I am to believe in your objectivity about this matter.

[wank]

agree with everything gnasher said.

[Free]

Those that claim that South doesn't realise instantly that the 10 is a stupid play with a singleton are wrong. South always intended to play the king, but saw an advantage in playing it slowly. And it is the answer to the question from East that gives it away. But you can interpret it two ways, just like Bentley's "Let him have it".

Basically it comes down to believing one of the following statements:

- South isn't advanced enough to plan the play of 1 trick, he only thinks about what card to play when he has to play the card, and isn't able to instantly realise the T is a stupid play.

- South is master in playing mindgames. He knows that a hesitation clearly suggests he doesn't hold ♠xxx, but his RHO will think he holds this anyway if he plays the K slowly. Therefore he planned the hesitation and executed it perfectly with great success.

 

I'm more inclined to believe the first statement. You clearly prefer to believe ilogical thoughts of mind.

[lamford]

Finally, the more you use words like "hogwash", "nonsense" and "subterfuge", the less inclined I am to believe in your objectivity about this matter.

That doesn't follow. I have indeed formed the opinion that I don't believe South, but when I first saw the hand I approached it objectively. mrdct expressed his opinion accurately and succintly. Others are entitled to theirs as well.

[lamford]

Taking a couple of seconds to think in any situation except where I am next to play and hold a singleton isnt unreasonable.

That is not the case either; holding Qxxxx under KJ in dummy, would you think it reasonable to take a couple of seconds to play low when declarer leads the suit? Perhaps you should substitute some for any.

[lamford]

Basically it comes down to believing one of the following statements:

- South isn't advanced enough to plan the play of 1 trick, he only thinks about what card to play when he has to play the card, and isn't able to instantly realise the T is a stupid play.

- South is master in playing mindgames. He knows that a hesitation clearly suggests he doesn't hold ♠xxx, but his RHO will think he holds this anyway if he plays the K slowly. Therefore he planned the hesitation and executed it perfectly with great success.

No, it is not necessary to decide between those statements at all. The only tests here are:

 

a) was there a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think on the actual hand?

b) if it is decided there is not, then the actual shape (1-2-2-8) is ruled out to East (South would never think).

c) could South have been aware the BIT would deceive? I would answer: yes; for this level of player it would be of the duration consistent with xxx opposite KQ10x, i.e. fairly short, but longer than he would think with a singleton.

d) if East is lured into thinking that South is 3-2-0-8, as far as I can see the only other shape where it matters, then he will always duck.

e) we need only consider South's reply to East for the purpose of deciding whether we believe the demonstrable bridge reason.

 

Once we go through those, I think we adjust to 5C - 1. I would also consider a PP.

[Free]

By posting here I presume you wanted an objective answer. You received it, and pretty much nobody agrees with you. Why are you, the so called 'objective' poster (definitely not East - we must be crazy for thinking that), trying to convince people with false arguments?

 

a) was there a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think on the actual hand?

It's not as easy as you make it seem. South has explained the reason why he thought before playing the K. Depending on his skill, current score, fatigue,... his explanation can be a valid reason. No 2 players are the same, and if the best player in the world would hesitate it wouldn't be acceptable, but we know nothing about South except what you've told us.

 

b) if it is decided there is not, then the actual shape (1-2-2-8) is ruled out to East (South would never think).

I don't think there's a clear answer to A, so B isn't 100% applicable. In either case, that's what you claim and what I think is complete nonsense. South can only think with a 1=2=2=8, with any other holding he definitely wouldn't have a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think. If you believe that the hesitation rules out a 1=2=2=8 to East, then I get the feeling you were East and blundered...

 

c) could the BIT have deceived? I would answer: yes; for this level of player it would be of the duration consistent with xxx opposite KQ10x, i.e. fairly short, but longer than he would think with a singleton.

The BIT could only deceive if declarer suggests something other than his holding. Like I've said many times already, the hesitation suggests singleton ♠, and guess what, declarer had a singleton ♠. So in what way can he deceive someone??

 

d) if East is lured into thinking that South is 3-2-0-8, as far as I can see the only other shape where it matters, then he will always duck.

If East is lured into thinking that South is 3=2=0=8, then East has a lot to learn about this game. He should be glad this occured so he can learn from this experience and realize that the hesitation suggests South holding singleton ♠.

 

e) we need only consider South's reply to East for the purpose of deciding whether we believe the demonstrable bridge reason.

Going short through the corner, what a great way to convince anyone.

 

Once we go through those, I think we adjust to 5C - 1.

Sorry, but LOL.

[semeai]

That is not the case either; holding Qxxxx under KJ in dummy, would you think it reasonable to take a couple of seconds to play low when declarer leads the suit? Perhaps you should substitute some for any.

 

Can I spend a few seconds deciding whether it would ever be necessary to unblock the king or whether I can afford to make the more normal looking play of the Jack, which better conceals the position?

[CSGibson]

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?

 

 

A spade discard of any kind clarifies the position. East would not discard from 3 to the J or from any 4 card holding, so it must be a 5 card holding.

[ggwhiz]

I believe you say East is an above average club player.

 

Either way there is no mention of what West pitched on the 2nd round of trumps.

 

Apparently this pair doesn't play signals and they earned this result.

 

I would only have a strong opinion on declarers motives if I was at the table

[lamford]

A spade discard of any kind clarifies the position. East would not discard from 3 to the J or from any 4 card holding, so it must be a 5 card holding.

It is West who discarded, and I do not know what he discarded. The JS would indeed be the best discard, as someone pointed out; would you deny redress for that reason?

[lamford]

Can I spend a few seconds deciding whether it would ever be necessary to unblock the king or whether I can afford to make the more normal looking play of the Jack, which better conceals the position?

I was referring to the person with Qxxxx, but your question reminded me of when declarer had KJx opposite Qx in a slam. Declarer thought for a while when the KJx was led through (not on the opening lead), and played the king. We played the suit back, fatally, but did not get a ruling because declarer had what was deemed to be a demonstrable bridge reason.

[alphatango]

It is West who discarded, and I do not know what he discarded. The JS would indeed be the best discard, as someone pointed out; would you deny redress for that reason?

 

I pointed out that West could rise with the SJ on the spade lead to prevent East from having this decision. Failure to do so is not SEWoG.

 

However, as CSGibson points out, had West pitched a spade on the second round of trumps, there are now no layouts where the duck will gain, and East's duck might well be in SEWoG territory, depending on how strong they are.

[lamford]

By posting here I presume you wanted an objective answer. You received it, and pretty much nobody agrees with you.

I suggest that you scan through the thread again.

 

hanoi5, mrdct, nige1, cyberyeti and AlexJonson agree with an adjustment, although the last is only "inclined" to do so. hrothgar, hotshot, gnasher, wank, Free, alphatango, sfi, keledor, CS Gibson, ggwhiz do not, although it should be noted that several of these argue that the defence should have discarded better, misunderstanding the law. A misdefence before the infraction, as gnasher points out, would not deny redress. semeai just asks a question.

 

That is the whole purpose of the forum, and the opinions of directors are the ones I would most value.

[lamford]

I pointed out that West could rise with the SJ on the spade lead to prevent East from having this decision. Failure to do so is not SEWoG.

 

However, as CSGibson points out, had West pitched a spade on the second round of trumps, there are now no layouts where the duck will gain, and East's duck might well be in SEWoG territory, depending on how strong they are.

I am told that West discarded the eight of diamonds, encouraging. And West had the eight and South the seven, I am also told.