Were we in fault ?

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9762hkj32dq83cq9&w=sjt84h754dj92cat8&n=saq53h986da7c5432&e=skhaqtdkt654ckj76&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1nppp&p=s7s4s3skd4d3djdah9hthjh4s2stsqc6h8hqhkh5h3h7h6hadkd8d2d7d5dqd9c2h2c8c3c7s6sjsad6s5cjs9]399|300[/hv]

 

This is the full deal and the auction and how it is played (click next to see the play)

 

This was from team game in BBO. I was the North player. NS carding is UDCA with first o/e discards.

 

At trick 1, when dummy played small ♠, very fast, i started to think. And after a long thought i decided to play ♠3 to keep comminication if for some reason pd led from a doubleton. (so i can establish 2♠ tricks by ducking again had declarer won first trick cheap)

 

After the play proceeded the way it did, at trick 10, East started to scream saying something like "i dont understand how South (telling my pd's name) figured out to continue spades, and that it must be something to do with my long hesitation at T1.

 

My pd, who has won an european champ mixed pairs and world open IMP pairs replied " Thanks for the compliment but we play with 4 pc"

 

But anyway, were we in fault ? What would you do as TD if we were complained by East ? I have a pretty good opinion about what TD would decide but i may not be objective since i am involved in the complaint.

[inquiry]

[hv=pc=n&s=s9762hkj32dq83cq9&w=sjt84h754dj92cat8&n=saq53h986da7c5432&e=skhaqtdkt654ckj76&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1nppp&p=s7s4s3skd4d3djdah9hthjh4s2stsqc6h8hqhkh5h3h7h6hadkd8d2d7d5dqd9c2h2c8c3c7s6sjsad6s5cjs9]399|300[/hv]

 

This is the full deal and the auction and how it is played (click next to see the play)

 

This was from team game in BBO. I was the North player. NS carding is UDCA with first o/e discards.

 

At trick 1, when dummy played small ♠, very fast, i started to think. And after a long thought i decided to play ♠3 to keep comminication if for some reason pd led from a doubleton. (so i can establish 2♠ tricks by ducking again had declarer won first trick cheap)

 

After the play proceeded the way it did, at trick 10, East started to scream saying something like "i dont understand how South (telling my pd's name) figured out to continue spades, and that it must be something to do with my long hesitation at T1.

 

My pd, who has won an european champ mixed pairs and world open IMP pairs replied " Thanks for the compliment but we play with 4 pc"

 

But anyway, were we in fault ? What would you do as TD if we were complained by East ? I have a pretty good opinion about what TD would decide but i may not be objective since i am involved in the complaint.

 

I feel slow today, so let me ask, what does "4 pc" mean?

 

As for the play, declarer should play slowly to the first trick -- even if he has no problem. 20 seconds would seem about right for a friendly game. This doesn't sound so friendly here. The fact that he didn't take his time playing to trick one, does not rob you of your time to think. If you thought for 20 to 30 seconds, I don't see any problem. So let's assume you took much longer than that.

 

As for continuing spades, maybe declarer should play better or bid differently (1d-1s-2c-2d-p seems an alternative) and it wouldn't matter. But I have to ask, is your first card playing udca count or attitude? If the ♠3 was positive attitude, then of course continuing spades would be "normal". If it was count, then there might be some logic in trying somewhere else (2 spades as opposed to 4S). I think the defense was fine.

[sfi]

Isn't it screamingly obvious to continue spades at trick 4? And isn't the SJ at trick 10 a no-win play?

 

Apart from the fact that third hand is expected to be able to think at trick one no matter what, declarer contributed significantly to the result.

[blackshoe]

"I screwed up, you need to pay for it."

[mrdct]

A good technique when there is an insta-play from dummy at trick one and you want to have a bit of a think about your defence is to type "brb" and then when you are ready to play type "b" followed by your card a couple of seconds later. The face-to-face equivalent of this is saying something like "sorry, I'm just thinking about the whole hand".

 

The laws say that it's desirable to play in tempo and to be particularly careful of situations where going into the tank could mislead your opponent. If you had no demonstrable bridge reason to go into the tank and you could've worked out at the time of the tank that it could work to your side's benefit, the TD can adjust the score. I don't think that's of much relevance here as it doesn't seem that declarer's line of play was influenced by the tank.

 

The issue that the TD needs to consider is whether or not north's hesitation went beyond what is normal at trick 1 and whether or not north always has a think at trick 1 after an insta-play or if he only does it when he has an immediate problem. The OP said the tank was "a long thought" so I'm leaning towards thinking that there could be some UI here. However, when south gets is on lead at trick 4 I can't really see any logical alternatives to a ♠ continuation - but I'd like to know:

 

- what are the NS carding methods?

- what does 4 pc mean?

[barmar]

I'd like to know:

 

- what are the NS carding methods?

- what does 4 pc mean?

The first question is answered in the OP: UDCA with o/e first discard. And North played low on trick 1, so why is it so hard to understand that South continued the suit when he got in?

 

There's no official RA for random BBO team games. But many RAs explicitly say that thinking on trick 1 is normal and expected, and generally shouldn't result in UI restrictions.

[gnasher]

If you always pause after a quick play by declarer, and this pause was of the normal length, no UI was conveyed.

 

If, on the other hand, you sometimes pause and sometimes don't, your pause conveyed UI. If you paused for longer than you would normally do, that conveyed UI too.

 

I don't think it's relevant, though. If declarer has AK AQ10 K10xxx xxx and North chose to encourage with Qxx 9xx Ax KJxxx, it doesn't matter which black suit South plays. Hence I think there's no logical alternative to a spade continuation.

[gnasher]

A good technique when there is an insta-play from dummy at trick one and you want to have a bit of a think about your defence is to type "brb" and then when you are ready to play type "b" followed by your card a couple of seconds later. The face-to-face equivalent of this is saying something like "sorry, I'm just thinking about the whole hand".

 

The online equivalent of saying "I'm thinking about the whole hand" is to type "I'm thinking about the whole hand".

 

If you say "brb" you imply that you're suspending play for some non-bridge purpose like answering the phone. If you say "brb" when you're actually thinking, you may mislead the opponents into thinking that you don't have a problem when in fact you do. That is against the rules.

[mrdct]

The online equivalent of saying "I'm thinking about the whole hand" is to type "I'm thinking about the whole hand".

 

If you say "brb" you imply that you're suspending play for some non-bridge purpose like answering the phone. If you say "brb" when you're actually thinking, you may mislead the opponents into thinking that you don't have a problem when in fact you do. That is against the rules.

yeah, touche, but "brb" is a lot easier to type

[gordontd]

yeah, touche, but "brb" is a lot easier to type

...than thk?

[aguahombre]

On line, I don't understand how telling all three players you have a problem is better than just acting when you are ready to act. Nobody needs to know whether your spouse interupted, your mouse froze, or whatever. Thinking is least likely of anything, on line.

[VixTD]

The OP said the tank was "a long thought" so I'm leaning towards thinking that there could be some UI here.

If you paused for longer than you would normally do, that conveyed UI too.

If it's accepted that it's normal for third hand to think at trick one, why does a short pause for thought suggest the defender is thinking about the hand in general, but a long pause suggest something in particular about the play to the first trick? Why couldn't the long pause just indicate that there's more to think about the general defence, and therefore convey essentially no useful UI whatsoever?

[gnasher]

If it's accepted that it's normal for third hand to think at trick one, why does a short pause for thought suggest the defender is thinking about the hand in general, but a long pause suggest something in particular about the play to the first trick?

I didn't say that. I was discussing whether there was UI, not what the UI tells us.

 

If third hand always plays exactly 20 seconds after dummy goes down (assuming that declarer has played by then), nobody knows how much time third hand spent thinking and how much time he spent counting the seconds, so there is no UI.

 

If third hand usually takes 20 seconds but in this case takes 30 seconds, we can infer that he had something to think about. That gives UI. We may not know whether he was thinking about trick one or about the hand in general, but the fact that he had something to think about is still UI.

[Phil]

Not a difficult hand from your partner's side:

 

1. He's seen the ♠K;

2. Your ♥9 infers she has the ♥AQ

3. The diamond play indicates she has the King.

4. If she had a spade holding like KQ or KQx, she's blowing out spades, not attacking diamonds for her tricks. So, she has the ♣K. Unless she is playing a deep game and trying to Zia you being wide opened in diamonds (um, negligible...:rolleyes:)

 

So it is 1000% you have the ♠A and probably the Q.

 

I mean, I loathe players like this that shotgun T1 and then bitch about UI from T1 tempo later.

 

edit: Saw Andy's post. AK tight is possible, but wouldn't we discourage with spades holding ♣KJxxx(x)?

[gnasher]

edit: Saw Andy's post. AK tight is possible, but wouldn't we discourage with spades holding ♣KJxxx(x)?

Probably, but we don't have to think about how partner would signal with that holding - if declarer has ♠AK, a club switch doesn't help anyway.

[MrAce]

We play udca attitude and count. 4th best leads, std honor leads, K being the power lead in NT. Primary signal is attitude, and we almost never use any suit preference

except than first even discard, in low level contracts.

 

I decided to play small ♠ and encourage at T1 because i thought pd was leading from xx or xxx and tried to maintain our communication especially if he led from xx, to make sure i set 2 spade tricks for defense if declarer knock's pd's entry first. I also knew as well as everyone else at the table, that all 4 hands were balanced. In my thought process i decided i will play hearts from the top each time i hold a hand and leave the club suit to declarer. The reason i had a long thought was whether pd led from xx or xxx and that if it really matters whether i duck or take it with A at trick 1. Rightly or wrongly i decided to duck. When i see declarer taking the first trick with K i started to suspect that she might have opened 1 NT with stiff K.

 

Rest of the play was pretty much auto for defense in my opinion. Defense didnt have much role in the outcome, it was upto declarer as some members here stated. Declarer did not question the lead of 7 in her mind imo since she played T on 3rd round of spades. My pd played precisely ♠7 at trick one, then he played smallest spade when he was in with hearts, and then he played another small spade at 3rd round of spades. How on earth can he hold spade A ? Did he lead 7 from A7xx ? Thats what she basically played him for and then started complaining when got it wrong.

 

 

EDIT: 4 pc was a sarcastic remark by my pd, which meant 4 computers, to protest the accusation in his own way.

[AlexJonson]

Why you posting again Ace. Your hesitation gave UI and luckily partner's decisions were clear.

[Phil]

Why you posting again Ace. Your hesitation gave UI and luckily partner's decisions were clear.

 

His LHO didn't think so. That's why he posted.

[AlexJonson]

His LHO didn't think so. That's why he posted.

Phil I asked why ace posted again, not the first time.

[MrAce]

Why you posting again Ace. Your hesitation gave UI and luckily partner's decisions were clear.

 

1-Someone asked our carding methods after my first post, so i did answer his question with a little more details in case first post was not enough.

 

2- Gnasher commented about the pauses and tempo of the play, so i explained what went thru my mind with more details and try to tell him my approximate delay at trick 1.

 

3- I think there were 2 people who asked what "4 pc" meant and i answered that.

 

I thought it would be rude when i am the OP not to answer the questions. I may have repeated myself while replying, but unless you show me the receipt which proves you are the one who is paying for the bandwith of BBO forums, it should not be your concern especially when this concern is the only contribution to the topic you came up with. ;)

[Phil]

Phil I asked why ace posted again, not the first time.

 

He explained what happened after the fact? Not sure what you are driving at.

 

LOLZ Timo.

[gnasher]

2- Gnasher commented about the pauses and tempo of the play, so i explained what went thru my mind with more details and try to tell him my approximate delay at trick 1.

Knowing the absolute length of your pause doesn't really tell us anything. We have to compare the time you took on this deal with the time that you would normally take.

 

It's a good habit to routinely pause after declarer plays quickly at trick one, regardless of whether you're thinking or not. That would avoid giving UI on a deal like this. I know that the online culture tends to discourage unnecessary pauses, but if you're playing seriously enough to care about the consequences of UI, you're playing seriously enough to try to avoid giving UI.

[blackshoe]

It's a good habit to routinely pause after declarer plays quickly at trick one, regardless of whether you're thinking or not.

I would recommend a slightly different approach: it's a good habit to routinely pause for 20 to 30 seconds at trick one to plan your defense, even if that planning only actually takes you one millisecond.

 

That would avoid giving UI on a deal like this. I know that the online culture tends to discourage unnecessary pauses, but if you're playing seriously enough to care about the consequences of UI, you're playing seriously enough to try to avoid giving UI.

True.

[MrAce]

I dont understand you guys, sorry.

 

People, when they are analysing the lead, the whole hand and how to defend do not, can not at the same time look at their watch or count the seconds they spend. It is ridicilious imo. The level of paranoia overrates the information of UI.

 

Not every hand is at the same difficulty to think about. Imo due to this nature of the game, and for the sake of good bridge, the penalties to the delays especially at T1, should be reconsidered. We may sit down and try to make game fair thinking that everyone is ill intended. But this takes a lot from bridge.

 

I mean you guys can sit and try to make your moves 20-30 seconds each time at T1. You maybe multi tasking, i am not. I cant focus on both defense and concern about the time at the same time. I will play fast and try to save time for everyone at the table when i have nothing to think about, and i will tell everyone that i need time to think when i need it. Do i deliver UI sometimes ? Probably yes. Do i do it intentionally ? No It is my pd's duty to protect us by taking the action he is expected to take w/o delay.

[CSGibson]

Timo, playing fast without thinking through the whole hand at trick 1 does not demonstrably save any time at all. It saves time to complete trick 1, but it often costs time later in the hand when you have to make a decision, remember what has been played, think about the HCP expected for partner & opener, etc. By doing your thinking ahead of time, you don't have to spend time remembering what has been played, at the very least, and it saves time later.

 

I think it was SJ Simon who said as much in Why You Lose at Bridge, but it could have been Reese instead in one of his books; either way, this is not my idea so much as it is me parroting someone much better at bridge than I am, but I still think it applies.