BIT in the play

[Cyberyeti]

I played in the Tollemache at the weekend in a group that seemed to be a reunion for people who frequent these boards. Frances, Jeffrey, Jeremy and Gordon were I think all playing in it. Against Frances, this event occurred and I'd like to get opinions on it. My memory may be slightly hazy, but I think the important facts are correct.

 

I'm defending a 3♦ contract after a (to me because I'm completely unfamiliar with the system) complicated 2 card opening club auction, transfer to ♦ response and multi way rebid.

 

IIRC declarer won the opening lead, cashed a trump, and then played a club towards dummy's AQx (the x being pretty small, I was expecting to see another trump)and played the Q.

 

I needed some time to work out what shapes declarer could have for the auction they had used, and playing clubs before trumps. I had 4 trumps, so I had knowledge about how many diamonds declarer could have. I can ask which suit they open with 3-3 in the minors or 4-4, but I know declarer doesn't have 4 as I have 4, dummy has 5 and partner followed with one. So if I ask what declarer opens with a 4-4 I'm misleading declarer, if I don't but ask about 3-3, partner might guess why I haven't and conclude I have 4 trumps. Therefore I reached for the convention card, proceeded to take some time looking in the wrong place for the answer(completely my fault, if I'd been on the ball, I could have answered this almost instantly).

 

After all this I played the J♣, I felt I did so in tempo, Frances didn't, but let's assume it was in tempo as clearly I don't have a leg to stand on if it wasn't. When I ruffed the second round there was some polite derision from Frances and partner and a director call at the end of the hand.

 

I felt the fact that I'd actually spent my time clearly looking at the convention card rather than gazing at my hand made it fairly clear that I was thinking about the hand as a whole so didn't feel I'd misled declarer. Clearly I'd have been better playing my card either face up or face down and then examining the card.

 

There was a contention that I might have held J10x. Now I recognise that this false card is mandatory in some circumstances, but this to me was not one of them and is not a play I would have made in a month of Sundays although J10 double was possible but not if partner had played a true card.

 

I was never even told what the director decided (maybe since the ruff consumed a natural trump trick, he decided it didn't matter).

 

My feeling at the time was that it would have been much more unethical to take a long look at the convention card then make the false card rather than what I actually did, but I have no idea whether this is right.

 

Comments welcome.

[AlexJonson]

I would take the view that you weren't sufficently careful in playing your singleton.

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqt8hj832dt754cj&w=saj6hk64dkq6c8643&n=s9432haq7djckt972&e=s75ht95da9832caq5]399|300[/hv]

I was the TD. Sorry, I don't have the auction. (EW were vulnerable, but it doesn't seem to be coming up on the diagram.)

 

Result: 3D(W)-1, NS +100

 

I looked at the hand and couldn't see any likely way of making it. I asked Frances at the end of the round what her plan would be had you played the ♣J in tempo (meaning without searching through the convention card at that point) and she confessed that after thinking about it some more she would always go one off, so she withdrew her request for a ruling.

 

I apologise for not going to find you and communicate this to you. I should certainly have said that I don't think you can spend time consulting the convention card with impunity at trick two if it's not going to affect your play to that trick (although I think I conveyed that impression at the table). You can take all the time you want (within reason) at trick one, as that is when you would be expected to consider implications from the auction and the sight of dummy etc., but taking time over playing a singleton at trick two is surely a breach of Law 73D1.

[Cyberyeti]

What other holding does partner play the 2 (odd number) and I play the J ? So where's the damage ? Even if there is a sensible route to 9 tricks.

 

Certainly there's little point in me doing it with J10x (I suppose declarer might just have K98x(x) but that's a pretty long shot), and it's more important with J10x for me to play the small one to let partner know that if he has 4 clubs he doesn't have to keep them all when trumps are played, which is what I wouldn't tell him by playing the J.

[bluejak]

Did you take an illegal action, ie a tempo breach in a position where care was required by Law 73D [2nd] because you knew it could have misled declarer? Yes.

 

Was there damage therefrom? No.

[Cyberyeti]

Did you take an illegal action, ie a tempo breach in a position where care was required by Law 73D [2nd] because you knew it could have misled declarer? Yes.

 

Was there damage therefrom? No.

I must admit, I didn't think the J could possibly mislead declarer as I didn't really see what else I would play the J from other than a doubleton which could be ruled out by partner's 2.

[Finch]

I played in the Tollemache at the weekend in a group that seemed to be a reunion for people who frequent these boards. Frances, Jeffrey, Jeremy and Gordon were I think all playing in it. Against Frances, this event occurred and I'd like to get opinions on it. My memory may be slightly hazy, but I think the important facts are correct.

 

I'm defending a 3♦ contract after a (to me because I'm completely unfamiliar with the system) complicated 2 card opening club auction, transfer to ♦ response and multi way rebid.

 

IIRC declarer won the opening lead, cashed a trump, and then played a club towards dummy's AQx (the x being pretty small, I was expecting to see another trump)and played the Q.

 

Your recall of the auction is not quite right, there was no 'multi-way rebid'. The auction was (starting with West):

 

1♣* P 1♠** dbl

Pass 2♠ dbl Pass

3♦ all pass

 

*2+ clubs (I can't remember if any questions were asked at the time about the 1C opening)

** Diamonds. South asked before doubling.

 

Either before or after the opening lead, but certainly at trick 1, there were various questions asked about the auction e.g. where responder had promised five diamonds (answer: either 5 diamonds or a game force, or both), what the double meant, what 2NT from opener would have meant after the double. That seemed to me to be the time to ask questions about exactly what I could have as declarer and what our opening style was.

 

The lead was the jack of diamonds. I also thought for some time at trick 1 before winning in hand with the king and taking a club finesse. The only two relevant club holdings from which the jack might be played were singleton Jack and J10x (including J109). Playing the J from J10x can never cost, whatever the club position, and might help partner by telling him you have a third round club guard. Even if I were to believe that your partner's 2 was count (not everyone gives true count in the first suit declarer plays on), K72 is still an odd number. Because of the (IMO) obvious hesitation in playing the jack I was completely certain you did not have a singleton.

 

After the second club got ruffed you could have taken 3D two off with a trump promotion, but mis-defended to turn it back into the one off originally destined. As it would have taken an even worse mis-defence to let it make if I played a spade at trick 3, I agreed with VixTD when he came to see me that I hadn't been damaged. By that time I had been dummy on the next board and had a chance to think about the exact layout.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing the J from J10x costs when you play 2 more rounds of trumps and partner discards something important to keep all his remaining 3 clubs when you only started with 3. He will suspect even more that you have 4 if I play the J which looks horribly like J10. Admittedly if partner plays the 2, this is not likely to be the case, but an ambiguous low card I'm always giving a correct count here rather than playing the J.

[mr1303]

Just my two pence, but I think it would be better if you gave the hand without naming the players involved.

[Rossoneri]

Law 73D2: A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the matter in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

 

1. There, the law specifically states it.

 

2. Frances makes some very good points about falsecarding/count signal not being necessarily true etc.

 

3. There was really no need to name the players involved, was there?

[barmar]

73D2 is about intentionally trying to mislead the opponent. He may have misled declarer, but it wasn't intentional.

 

The relevant law is 73D1:

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

The question is whether this was a situation where variations may work to his benefit, and if so whether he was not "particularly careful".

 

Note also that this is a "should", not a "must".

[blackshoe]

Note also that this is a "should", not a "must".

 

What difference do you suppose that makes?

[Cyberyeti]

Just my two pence, but I think it would be better if you gave the hand without naming the players involved.

I didn't see a problem with it as I wasn't criticising Frances in any way, I was examining my own behaviour and was expecting her to post in the thread.

[bluejak]

It adds to the general interest of this forum when players form the forum are involved, and others find it interesting when this is the case and stated.

[barmar]

What difference do you suppose that makes?

It reduces the strength of the proscription, I think. It makes it a very good idea, but not a strict requirement like those indicated with "must".

[blackshoe]

When a player "should" do something, and does not, that is an infraction of law. When a player "must" do something, that is an infraction of law. The difference lies in how frequently the infraction should draw a procedural penalty, not in how lenient the TD should be in adjudicating the infraction.