Bridge Reason

[mrdct]

[hv=pc=n&s=st874hkt52d32ck32&w=sakj53hq3d954ct95&n=shaj964dakq876cq8&e=sq962h87djtcaj764&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1cp1sd2s3h4s5hpp5s6hppp]399|300[/hv]

We need to know a little bit more about East-West's methods and competence. Do East-West play support doubles/redoubles? How many ♣ did East initially promise (i.e. are they playing Acol)? Did West have a fit showing jump available? Is East a noob? Do East-West systemically open 1st seat all-vul with 8hcp?

 

Depending on what we learn from investigating East-West's methods, I think it's quite likely that East can be placed with 9 or 10 cards in the blacks and West with 7 or 8 so on the theory of vacant spaces if you were going to take a ♥ hook you may well choose to play West for the ♥Q. If East is a competent player there is not much that can be read into a fidget, hesitation or card replacement as there is no holding where it's right to cover the ♥J.

 

I don't think much of declarer's line here either. With West not having lead a singleton ♣, I don't think there is any chance of ♣ being 1-7, so a ♣ exit at trick two will at the very least give you more info about the distribution on the hand, and every so often will see a trump switch depending on the standard of the game.

 

I'll reserve judgement for the time being until I know more about what's actually going on at this table.

[lamford]

I don't think much of declarer's line here either. With West not having lead a singleton ♣, I don't think there is any chance of ♣ being 1-7, so a ♣ exit at trick two will at the very least give you more info about the distribution on the hand, and every so often will see a trump switch depending on the standard of the game.

I do not see much point to exiting with a club. You are unlikely to know how they are distributed, and East is sure to have the ace of clubs. And it does not seem relevant to the ruling, as it would hardly be SeWoG to not exit with a club! And the question is whether they play support redoubles, not support doubles.

[Cascade]

(I was amazed West went to 5S with Qx in hearts)

 

Actually the hand occurred over a month ago and I couldn't remember who bid 5♠. The auction is accurate to 5♥ then one opponent bid 5♠ - I couldn't believe either would looking at their hands - and north bid 6♥.

[barmar]

I don't think much of declarer's line here either. With West not having lead a singleton ♣, I don't think there is any chance of ♣ being 1-7, so a ♣ exit at trick two will at the very least give you more info about the distribution on the hand, and every so often will see a trump switch depending on the standard of the game.

The form of scoring wasn't specified. If it's matchpoints, you may want to play for the overtrick by guessing hearts right and then pitching all your clubs on the diamonds.

[lamford]

The form of scoring wasn't specified. If it's matchpoints, you may want to play for the overtrick by guessing hearts right and then pitching all your clubs on the diamonds.

I wouldn't be too worried about my matchpoint score for 6♥= on a combined 22 count missing the queen of trumps and an ace. Especially as we were content with 5H a moment ago.

[olegru]

East with singleton at the moment performed some mannerism to benefit his side. He claimed it was by accident. If I believe I would not issue PP. But adjustment is automatic.

[lamford]

East with singleton at the moment performed some mannerism to benefit his side. He claimed it was by accident. If I believe I would not issue PP. But adjustment is automatic.

I think that the damage was very little. Without the BIT, I would imagine declaer would go down. I would therefore suggest adjusting to 20% of 6H= and 80% of 6H-1, erring in favour of the non-offenders. If some of my pollees made 6H without the BIT, then I would reconsider.

[olegru]

Opening from East and 5♠ from West suggest finessing, but absence of double and "nine-never" rule suggest otherwise. Split 50-50 OK with me, but if I cann't split - sorry East.

[pran]

East with singleton at the moment performed some mannerism to benefit his side. He claimed it was by accident. If I believe I would not issue PP. But adjustment is automatic.

There is no BIT problem here. The problem is East's behaviour and manner in which he played his singleton.

 

Sorry, somehow I answered to the wrong entry, my comment was intended for this statement:

I think that the damage was very little. Without the BIT, I would imagine declaer would go down. I would therefore suggest adjusting to 20% of 6H= and 80% of 6H-1, erring in favour of the non-offenders. If some of my pollees made 6H without the BIT, then I would reconsider.

[gombo121]

Why oh why we so easily dismiss "at his own risk" clause?

 

East fumbles - for whatever reasons. Can declarer deliberately ignore the fumble or can he not? Sure he can, but he deliberately chooses not to, he chooses to base his action on East's mannerism. Fine, rules allow for that, but on his own risk. Declarer decided to take his chances and failed - so what?

 

You have a harsh look on East's attitude? - I can see your point. So PP him, or adjust his score, or both. But declarer's score should not be adjusted in any way, next time he will try harder to get real information on card distribution from play, not from mannerism of his opps.

 

Split score could and I believe should be used in such situations.

[RMB1]

Why oh why we so easily dismiss "at his own risk" clause?

 

Good question.

We certainly do dismiss that clause in favour of Law 73F.

This attitude comes from case law (jurisprudence) and TD training.

 

The final sentence of Law73D is applied as if it read:

Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent; but, if there is a demonstrable bridge reason for the variation, an opponent draws any inference at his own risk.

[Cascade]

Why oh why we so easily dismiss "at his own risk" clause?

 

I think "at his own risk" applies in situations like where a player thinks and then we decide what he is thinking about and take some line of play but it turns out he had some other (bridge) problem that we overlooked then it is our bad luck.

 

The bridge reason for the thought needs to be demonstrable. You cant just vary your tempo and then claim you were thinking about bidding or playing some other card.

[ggwhiz]

Looking at that dummy every Bridge player with a pulse knows trumps are about to be played and more than once.

 

There is no excuse for East being unprepared. If 2 cards were stuck, he should have unstuck them before trick 2 let alone part way through trick 3.

[barmar]

If 2 cards were stuck, he should have unstuck them before trick 2 let alone part way through trick 3.

Are you kidding? You can't tell ahead of time when cards will get stuck while pulling them from your hand.

 

In this case, the cards weren't even stuck, he mistakenly thought they were. So how was he supposed to unstick these?

[gombo121]

The bridge reason for the thought needs to be demonstrable. You cant just vary your tempo and then claim you were thinking about bidding or playing some other card.

I'd like to ask "says who?", but really that is NOT the point. The point is that declarer may legitimately complain about an attempt to deceive and defender should be penalized if this would be proven. But declarer is not supposed to base his action solely on opponent's tells, and therefore he should not get a free ride doing that.

 

You concentrate solely on East's alleged infraction, but what South did is (or did not) is equally or even more important for his score. If he plays along with probabiliteis (as bridge is supposed to be played, I believe), he will never be deceived this way.

 

BTW, how does South know that East pulls the same card from his hand second time? Was he watching closely? Then he was breaching 74C5, wasn't he? Should PP be applied to him?

[Cascade]

I'd like to ask "says who?", but really that is NOT the point. The point is that declarer may legitimately complain about an attempt to deceive and defender should be penalized if this would be proven. But declarer is not supposed to base his action solely on opponent's tells, and therefore he should not get a free ride doing that.

 

You concentrate solely on East's alleged infraction, but what South did is (or did not) is equally or even more important for his score. If he plays along with probabiliteis (as bridge is supposed to be played, I believe), he will never be deceived this way.

 

BTW, how does South know that East pulls the same card from his hand second time? Was he watching closely? Then he was breaching 74C5, wasn't he? Should PP be applied to him?

 

East admitted he played the same card.

 

Just to be clear when i wrote you 'can't just claim ...' I meant the claim needs to be able to be accompanied by a demonstrable reason.

 

So if there is no demonstrable reason then your claim that you were thinking of something else is not sufficient.

[olegru]

.. But declarer is not supposed to base his action solely on opponent's tells, and therefore he should not get a free ride doing that...

 

You concentrate solely on East's alleged infraction, but what South did is (or did not) is equally or even more important for his score. If he plays along with probabiliteis (as bridge is supposed to be played, I believe), he will never be deceived this way.

Gombo, look at bidding.

Declarer did play according the probabiliteis. East open 8 points hand and after West lead Ace of spade was strong favourite to have ♥Q.

[mich-b]

Considering the position in the ♥ suit and the bidding it is obvious that East was not "thinking" , was not "changing his mind", and was not trying to deceive. Since with x or Qx , he doesn't have any choice but to follow with the x.

Actually this should have been obvious to South as well. What did he think was going on? What did he think East's "fingering" implies? that he started with Qxx? Really? If he intended to play for the drop why did he change his mind?

I think it is obvious that East's fingering had no relevance to his holding in the suit, and if South thought otherwise he was either simply wrong (best case) or trying for a double shot (either the finesse works or I will get an adjustment). I have no sympathy for him.

[gombo121]

East admitted he played the same card.

 

Wait, now I'm lost.

 

You basically say that all South saw was that East take out a card, put it back, and then take out a card again, possibly a different one. For all he knows, East may just escaped making a revoke; what kind of inference he can possibly made from that and what he is complaining about?!

 

Suppose East said that the first time he took out a card of another suit; would you also rule against him? Personally, I would consider such a ruling outrageous (provided, of course, East is not known to make such slips each evening). The actual explanation by East did sound a bit suspicious, since you don't usually need put card back in hand to check if it is one or two, but it may well be sincere.

 

I'd say East should get a lecture about his action being suspicious and that it is illegal to try to deceive declarer this way, South get a lecture on he should not pay close attention on behavior of opps and certainly should not expect to be compensated if his conslusions went wrong, result stands.

 

 

Gombo, look at bidding.

Declarer did play according the probabiliteis. East open 8 points hand and after West lead Ace of spade was strong favourite to have ♥Q.

Fine. Really, good for him. What is he complaining about, again? That his coin does not come heads up when he need it? Tough luck.

 

If he'd like to make a case about misexplanation of 1♣ opening, or missing alert, or something else related to the bidding - that's completely different story. But I see no case for the Law 73, especially if East is a player of any ability - there was clearly no sense to cover J, so there was equally no sense in faking it.

[olegru]

Fine. Really, good for him. What is he complaining about, again?

 

Declarer had a choice. He could play according the probabilities or against the odds.

Let say he had 25% to get it right simply follow the rule 9 never. Mannerism by East robbed him of this 25%.

 

If regulation allows weighted adjustment equality can be restored relatively easy. We can discuss actual percentage but adjustment is due.

It looks harder in ACBL land, but I still do not think we can allow East to get out with stolen 25% of probabilities even if he got them by accident.

As for adjustment for NS I would make a poll to see if 6h made is in “all probable” category.

[gombo121]

Declarer had a choice. He could play according the probabilities or against the odds.

Let say he had 25% to get it right simply follow the rule 9 never. Mannerism by East robbed him of this 25%.

 

Sorry, but once again: how exactly declarer have been "robbed"? After any mannerism of a defender declarer has the same choice as before plus additional option to take new extraneous information into account. To exercise this option or not is his deliberate choice and he should be held fully accountable for the consequences. No action by defender can limit declarers choice, no action can "rob" him of anything.

 

Actually, above arguments, though I firmly believe in them in general, are completely irrelevant for the particular case we discuss.

 

Here everything is much simpler and I'm surprised that this point (though mentioned by Cyberyeti and mrdct) was not really stressed before (and I'm sorry that I didn't pay much attention to the diagram myself).

Bidding have made clear that South had at least four hearts, so if East happened to hold queen-third he knew exactly that his partner has no more cards in the suit and he would never dream about covering jack. Not only that, but South perfectly well knew that East knew that. So South's pretense that he was deceived into thinking that East have been holding queen and hesitated about to cover or not are simply ludicrous and it is just a crude attempt at double-shot, which collected surprisingly lot of sympathy (and if East is really so inexpirienced that he may actualy consider covering jack, the whole business becomes indecent in my opinion).

[blackshoe]

The question is whether there has been an infraction of law. If there has, and the NOS were damaged, they're due adjustment.

 

It appears Gombo is arguing there cannot have been damage from an infraction, either because there was no infraction, or because although there was, it didn't cause the damage.

[ggwhiz]

East admitted he played the same card.

 

After hesitating and with no other option.

 

Do the laws not read along the lines of MAY have been done to deceive?

 

I don't question the ethics of east at all (seems to be very forthright as to the facts) and if I remember right on the above, he's completely off the hook ethics wise and should be.

 

Still, sloppy play that deserves a slap with a wet noodle.

[blackshoe]

Do the laws not read along the lines of MAY have been done to deceive?

 

No, they don't.

[Cascade]

Do the laws not read along the lines of MAY have been done to deceive?

 

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

to an innocent opponent,..."

 

The relevant law here is the one concerning tempo. There was a violation of the law regarding tempo.

 

"... if the Director determines that an innocent player

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

 

It is not relevant that there was an intent to deceive only that the opponent was deceived or in fact I think a lesser standard of drawing a false inference.

 

"... 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, ..."

 

There needs to be no bridge reason for the tempo etc issue. To me this means if I think you were thinking about "A" and make an assumption based on that but it turns out you were thinking about "B" which was to you a legitimate 'bridge reason' then that is my problem not yours.

 

I am inclined to believe that claiming two cards were stuck together (or I had the card from the wrong suit) is not a bridge reason. Otherwise a guilty opponent could always make such a claim. While I am not one for saying things like 'thinking about the whole hand' I have on occasion said "sorry pulled the wrong card" in similar situations.

 

There is also a condition that the player "could have known". In this case the player 'could have known' that by removing a card and returning it to his hand and then playing a card that he might deceive declarer into thinking he had a choice of plays and that it might work to his benefit. I think in the current situation that his 'could have known' is heightened when the player has already made a deceptive opening bid although some others here have disagreed with that.

 

"... the Director shall award an adjusted score"

 

If these conditions are met the director needs to award an adjusted score.

 

The wording here is interesting and strong.

 

Declarer drew a false inference - East had an alternative card to play

 

There was no bridge reason - if you accept that "i thought two cards were stuck together" is not a bridge reason

 

Could have known that it would work to his advantage - this seems obvious in this case

 

Now the director shall adjust the score.

 

I am not sure the wording is correct here. "Drawing a false inference" is not the same as "damaged". As written it appears to me (and I had not considered this until now) that declarer does indeed have a free shot following this sort of fumble.

 

A declarer who was inclined to finesse anyway but draws the 'false inference' that RHO has another card and the director is instructed by law to adjust.