A Bit Deceived

[semeai]

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.

 

Interesting. I was going to object and say there was no bridge reason, but I guess I see it now: it's the opposite of what I was suggesting with the Qxxxx-KJ situation. Declarer could be deciding whether he needed to play the J, keeping the K around to possibly overtake the Q, or whether he can afford to make the more deceptive play of the K, which may have the effect it did on you: it was taken by the A and you were left to wonder whether there was still a further trick in the suit for you.

 

Probably on both of these suit combinations the length of the huddle together with how much keeping the ability to overtake makes any sense in the context of the rest of the hand matters?

[gordontd]

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.

Deciding whether to play the 10 or another spade in this situation is a demonstrable bridge reason. If we're satisfied that's what the pause was about, there's no reason to adjust. If we're satisfied the pause wasn't for a demonstrable bridge reason, then we need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent, and could he have known at the time that it could work to his benefit?

[alphatango]

hrothgar, hotshot, gnasher, wank, Free, alphatango, sfi, keledor, CS Gibson, ggwhiz do not [agree with an adjustment], 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.

 

Actually, I expressed no opinion on the merits of the question (because I had not yet considered it seriously), and thus I do not believe I have (yet) demonstrated any misunderstanding of the law. I will attempt to do so below. :)

 

(I pointed out a possible play by West which I found interesting, and I agreed with CSGibson that if a discard had previously been made in the suit, East would have far less (no?) reason to duck. The former is not relevant to any ruling; the latter is potentially relevant for denying redress if we decide that an adjustment is in order.)

 

* * *

 

Since my opinion appears to be invited, here it is. :) For the record, I do direct, although I hope that my arguments are judged on their logical merits rather than on the basis of any directing experience.

 

On the question of whether South had a demonstrable bridge reason or not, I do not think the table director's view was manifestly incorrect, and I would defer to the judgement of the person who was there.

 

Suppose, arguendo, that we decide that South did not have a demonstrable bridge reason to hesitate.The "false inference" drawn by the opponent must also meet some unwritten standard of reasonableness, else I would be able to get an adjustment when I led towards AKJT987 on table, LHO hesitated, and I lost the finesse to Qx.

 

I do not think that there is a sufficiently strong logical connection between the hesitation and the idea that declarer must have 3=2=0=8 rather than 1=2=2=8. There is at least as much reason for thought with the latter shape as the former. There is no decision to be made (on the first round) with the former shape; with the latter you are at least deciding between LHO being weak enough to duck the SA and RHO being weak enough to not return a diamond! East took the view that 3=2=0=8 might have something to think about while 1=2=2=8 would never think; I do not believe that view is correct. Is it nevertheless reasonable enough to meet the unwritten standard? I don't know, because it's unwritten. :lol: (We might do well to clarify that standard in a future edition, of course, but that's for a different forum.)

 

In the absence of a clear standard, I think East's view is sufficiently wrong that I would not adjust.

 

* * *

 

(Hmm -- if I were East and declarer hesitated, I might wonder whether he had mis-sorted his 1=4=0=8 and was now trying to figure out how many tricks he needed to play for!)

[Finch]

Fair point; but two posts would be excessive for one issue....

 

I was going to do a multiquote but realised I'd run out of room to fit my post on one page.

[ggwhiz]

We need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent

 

Sums up my opinion

[CSGibson]

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.

 

Read through the thread yourself. I neither said an adjustment should or should not be made; I simply indicated that any spade discard should awaken righty to the position.

 

Since you asked, however, I think that this is a gray area, where you take note of the person hesitating, look to see if they have a history of shenanigans, and make a judgment call. There is no clear right answer, nor even an answer I would be willing to suggest without a full context richer than what you have so far provided.

[hotShot]

Your argument completely depends on the assumption that a hesitation suggests 3-2-0-8 shape.

If that is in fact South shape, than 5♣ are already made. Because there is still a high ♥ at the table and South needs only 1 trick in ♠ which is guaranteed with KQ.

 

How can East exclude that South holds 2-3-0-8 and is evaluating the chances to drop his 3rd ♥ on ♠?

 

Your argument is completely ignoring the the possibility that South can go down.

 

Since West did not play the A♠ why can't South holding 1-2-2-8 evaluate the chances that the ♦ honors are split in a way that East would not want to touch ♦?

[Free]

How can East exclude that South holds 2-3-0-8 and is evaluating the chances to drop his 3rd ♥ on ♠?

I agree with the rest of your post, but South can't hold a 2=3=0=8 because West showed an odd number of ♠s.

[lamford]

Since West did not play the A♠ why can't South holding 1-2-2-8 evaluate the chances that the ♦ honors are split in a way that East would not want to touch ♦?

I do not consider, looking at dummy, any chance that East will not switch to a diamond.

[Free]

I do not consider, looking at dummy, any chance that East will not switch to a diamond.

Well, I have to confront you with the facts, East didn't switch to a diamond... :rolleyes: So there is a chance.

 

Btw, something else I've been thinking about: why did South claim after winning the ♠K? He could've played for +1 by playing a small ♠ from dummy, trying to fool East twice.

[lamford]

Deciding whether to play the 10 or another spade in this situation is a demonstrable bridge reason. If we're satisfied that's what the pause was about, there's no reason to adjust. If we're satisfied the pause wasn't for a demonstrable bridge reason, then we need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent, and could he have known at the time that it could work to his benefit?

Given the facts as stated, would you accept South's statement that he was considering whether to play the ten? And do you consider that South could have known a BIT would mislead an opponent? I presume there is no question as to whether East is an innocent opponent.

[gordontd]

Given the facts as stated, would you accept South's statement that he was considering whether to play the ten? And do you consider that South could have known a BIT would mislead an opponent? I presume there is no question as to whether East is an innocent opponent.

I'd want to have been there to make that decision. That's why I carefully avoided giving a definite answer!

[lamford]

Btw, something else I've been thinking about: why did South claim after winning the ♠K? He could've played for +1 by playing a small ♠ from dummy, trying to fool East twice.

I guess he thought 5C making would be a matchpoints top (it was); and he had already established that West had shown an odd number of spades, so East's duck must have placed him with xxx. I don't think the TD addressed that issue; do you think it is material to the ruling? Perhaps South wanted to chortle as soon as possible after East's "mistake". But then if I use words like chortle, gnasher will assume that I am not objective.

[jallerton]

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?

 

There is the common sense method of discards. Holding a 5-card suit and knowing from dummy that no other player can hold 5 cards in that suit, many players would regard a discard from that suit as safe and informative. By inference the discard is likely to be from a 5-card suit as a discard from Jxx under KQ10x would eliminate the guess position (with Axx over the KQ10x) you mention.

 

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.

 

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple, but they are not always quite so simple to apply in practice to a particular case.

 

Even assuming the hesitation is deemed to be an infraction, you seem to have missed out some of your workings to explain how you arrive at your adjustment.

 

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

 

So in this case, what would have been the expectation had the alleged infraction not occurred? Well this alert East had clearly recognised the potential gain from ducking. He would also have noted that partner had not discarded a spade (so presumably does not hold five) and would duck anyway. In that case, the alleged infraction has not caused any damage.

 

Alternatively, the TD might judge that East would probably (rather than definitely) have ducked if South's play has been in tempo. Now if you believe that South's pause was an infraction, the correct adjustment is a weighted score, say 75% of 5♣= + 25% of 5♣-1.

[lamford]

There is the common sense method of discards. Holding a 5-card suit and knowing from dummy that no other player can hold 5 cards in that suit, many players would regard a discard from that suit as safe and informative. By inference the discard is likely to be from a 5-card suit as a discard from Jxx under KQ10x would eliminate the guess position (with Axx over the KQ10x) you mention.

The problem with a spade discard is that it could also help declarer, if he does have a guess in the suit. South will know that West does not have Jxx. Playing simple methods with high encouraging, East will only conclude that his partner has a high diamond, and it seems that he would actually win the ace most of the time if he were not deceived, if only because 1-2-2-8 is more frequent than 3-2-0-8, and because ducking can only save the ovetrick. But I agree with you that, if we decide there is an infraction, we have to make a judgement on what would happen without it; I submit that it is 80% of 5♣ - 1 and 20% of 5♣ =. I have since polled a number of players of average ability with both hands, and all played high in both cases, of course. They did so instantly when holding a singleton, and took an average of 2-3 seconds with xxx opposite KQ10x - as would all average players with anything remotely resembling a suit combination.