Unhelpful comment

[Finch]

IMPs, 32-board KO

South holds, and hears

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt9842hkt2d7ca62&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1h2d3ddpp3h4d4h5dppdppp]133|200[/hv]

 

1♥ = 5+ hearts

3♦ = limit raise+ with exactly 3 hearts

Pass over the double = game try or better (3♥ is the weakest call)

Pass over 5♦ = forcing

 

before South has a chance to lead, West says "I wish you hadn't bid partner, I was waiting to double this"

 

South thinks for a long time before leading, and eventually leads the jack of spades. Dummy has

 

♠Ax

♥Q86x

♦A10952

♣52

 

The contract makes. It would be one off on a heart (or club) lead (Declarer has KQx of spades.). FWIW, although irrelevant, 4Hx would make.

 

South says that he would have led a heart, but the comment make him think that dummy had something like AQx or AJxx opposite a singleton or void, and that put him off a heart lead.

[ggwhiz]

I would hang em high, contract making. Nothing unethical here and I expect the player who accidentaly made this comment to accept their fate with good grace.

[Quartic]

I would hang em high, contract making. Nothing unethical here and I expect the player who accidentaly made this comment to accept their fate with good grace.

 

It was the side that got the good result (East-West) that made the unhelpful comment.

[RMB1]

To adjust under Law 73F, we need

1. "that an innocent player"
   
2. "has drawn a false inference"
   
3. "from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent"
   
4. "who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, "
   
5. "and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit,"

 

I do not think the last part is satisfied. I do think that West could know that the remark would be taken to show fast heart tricks rather than slow heart tricks, and that inference would work against the defence.

[Trinidad]

To adjust under Law 73F, we need

1. "that an innocent player"
   
2. "has drawn a false inference"
   
3. "from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent"
   
4. "who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, "
   
5. "and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit,"

 

I do not think the last part is satisfied. I do think that West could know that the remark would be taken to show fast heart tricks rather than slow heart tricks, and that inference would work against the defence.

Simply put, some of the time the action (making the comment) will work to his benefit (and some of the time it doesn't matter and some of the time he loses). Isn't that enough to satisfy the fifth condition? Isn't "some of the time will" sronger than "could"?

 

To me, it is pretty obvious that anything I say will usually work against me, but might end up working in my favor sometimes. In the second case, I would expect the TD to take my advantage away.

 

Rik

[mjj29]

To me, it is pretty obvious that anything I say will usually work against me, but might end up working in my favor sometimes. In the second case, I would expect the TD to take my advantage away.

Surely that clause must mean more than this - if _anything_ qualifies, then that clause wouldn't be there. We must have something more indicative than that.

[iviehoff]

Surely that clause must mean more than this - if _anything_ qualifies, then that clause wouldn't be there. We must have something more indicative than that.

In Law 73D2, it says it is wrong to attempt mislead the opponents by (I paraphrase) deliberate variations in tempo and also by other extraneous behaviour. But in Law 73D1 it only mentions variations in tempo as being the thing that one may draw inferences from at one's own risk. I think we read from this that variations in tempo are inevitable, but the other extraneous behaviour is quite unnecessary, so "at one's own risk" really does not apply at all to such unnecessary extraneousness. So I'm inclined to take Trinidad's interpretation - you are entitled to draw conclusions from extraneous behaviour, and not at all at your own risk. The player might not have been able to predict, in looking at his own cards, in what manner an opponent might be misled by unnecessary extraneous behaviour, such as saying "I was doubling that". But sure as anything he is aware that such statements may mislead, depending upon the card holdings of others.

[barmar]

73D1 says a player can't attempt to mislead opponents. His remark implied that he had a decent hand with a bunch of ♥, isn't that what he has? Are you really quibbling that his remark implies his ♥ would be better than Qxxx, and saying this with such a poor stack would mislead the opponents into the wrong defense?