Demonstrable Bridge Reason

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjhkt6daqt76c83&w=skt9632hj542dca65&n=s8hq93dk9432ckqt4&e=s754ha87dj85cj972&d=n&v=2&b=1&a=pp1d1s2s(good%20raise)p3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Game All; Dealer North. Matchpoints

 

West led the ten of spades and South won with the queen and played a club to the queen, then crossed to a diamond, West pitching the five of hearts (reverse attitude), and played a heart to the queen, West playing the two and East winning. East returned a spade, I think the seven, and South won and cashed a diamond, West throwing a club, and another diamond, West pitching a heart. Now South led the ten of diamonds, and West took perhaps a minute to pitch a spade, and on the last diamond, the nine of spades in tempo. East pitched a club and a spade. South exited with the club, placing West with K Jx - A at this stage, but West had the six of spades to cash, and declarer made exactly for 30%. 3NT+1 was about 75%.

 

South asked for a ruling, as he felt that West's tempo when he was down to just spades, the jack of hearts, and the ace of clubs, could have misled. West, when asked, stated he was considering discarding the jack of hearts, and the TD eventually, after consultation, ruled this was a demonstrable bridge reason. Do you agree? I have no idea whether they were playing Michaels cuebids, nor what East's carding would be. They were a first-time partnership.

[aguahombre]

I have no idea whether they were playing Michaels cuebids, nor what East's carding would be. They were a first-time partnership.

Did South have an idea whether they were playing Michaels cuebids? If East had four spades, he wouldn't have bid 3♠? Seems as if South stopped thinking after mistakenly believing he would get the overtrick back from the TD.

[lamford]

Did South have an idea whether they were playing Michaels cuebids? If East had four spades, he wouldn't have bid 3♠? Seems as if South stopped thinking after mistakenly believing he would get the overtrick back from the TD.

South had no idea whether they were playing Michaels, nor would he expect West to use it with such poor suits. It was game all, not love all, and East might not bid 3S over 2S on xxxx Ax Jxx Jxxx at matchpoints. But yes, South did assume West had K9x Jx - A at the time he took a long think, which is why he did not ask any questions. Should that deny South redress?

[PhilKing]

I would not give South anything here.

[aguahombre]

But yes, South did assume West had K9x Jx - A at the time he took a long think, which is why he did not ask any questions. Should that deny South redress?

I believe that was my point. He didn't bother to ask the Michaels question, but played him for a Michaels hand. I think that fact should be considered when deciding whether to give redress. Declarer also didn't bother to ask about carding, and perhaps Righty's count card (can't be attitude) at trick one would have been a clue.

 

I stand by self-inflicted. Lefty said what his "demonstrable Bridge reason" was. Even though he probably should have done his reasoning before pitching down to the heart Jack, our criterion is whether he thought he had a Bridge reason, not whether he has any Bridge reasoning ability.

[lamford]

Even though he probably should have done his reasoning before pitching down to the heart Jack, our criterion is whether he thought he had a Bridge reason, not whether he has any Bridge reasoning ability.

I think you have misunderstood. He thought a trick after he had bared the jack of hearts. When he had K96x J none A. But two strong directors consulted both thought it was a bridge reason still. Gnasher, who was consulted, thought there were grounds for appeal, but South elected not to.

[gnasher]

I can't see any bridge reason for thinking at the point that he did. Non-bridge reasons include:

- Thinking about the best spades to pitch in order to simulate a 5503 shape. I think this should be accepted as legitimate, but I understand that it isn't.

- Having just played 69 boards in nine hours, with another 24 to go.

 

I would not give South anything here.

Perhaps not, but we can still take West's good score away from him, and I think we probably should.

 

Should South keep his poor score? There are three candidates for a serious error by South:

- Failure to consider the possibility of a Michaels cue-bid on a 5503 shape.

- Failure to consider the possibility of a raise by East on a 4234 shape.

- Failure to find out what East's signal meant at trick one. We're not told what East played, but if it was a count signal South should have known the spade layout.

(South's possible misplay at trick four is irrelevant, as it occurred before any infraction.)

 

One of these, or perhaps two or three of them in combination, might make South's play a serious error. I'm not sure.

Edited April 8, 2013 by gnasher

[lamford]

- Failure to find out what East's signal meant at trick one. We're not told what East played, but if it was a count signal South should have known the spade layout.

(South's possible misplay at trick four is irrelevant, as it occurred before any infraction.)

The only question South asked about carding obtained the answer "reverse attitude". South considered playing a second club at trick four, but West might win and play another, giving an awkward guess. I don't think any of the points you raise are remotely SEWoG. And one might not make a Michaels Cuebid on K109xx Jxxxx none Axx at game all opposite a passed partner?

 

And I agree that West should not keep his 3NT=, and that was an error by the TD who accepted West's statement that he was considering pitching the JH and that this was a bridge reason.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqjhkt6daqt76c83&w=skt9632hj542dca65&n=s8hq93dk9432ckqt4&e=s754ha87dj85cj972&d=n&v=2&b=1&a=pp1d1s2s(good%20raise)p3nppp]399|300| Lamford writes "Game All; Dealer North. Matchpoints. West led the ten of spades and South won with the queen and played a club to the queen, then crossed to a diamond, West pitching the five of hearts (reverse attitude), and played a heart to the queen, West playing the two and East winning. East returned a spade, I think the seven, and South won and cashed a diamond, West throwing a club, and another diamond, West pitching a heart. Now South led the ten of diamonds, and West took perhaps a minute to pitch a spade, and on the last diamond, the nine of spades in tempo. East pitched a club and a spade. South exited with the club, placing West with K Jx - A at this stage, but West had the six of spades to cash, and declarer made exactly for 30%. 3NT+1 was about 75%. South asked for a ruling, as he felt that West's tempo when he was down to just spades, the jack of hearts, and the ace of clubs, could have misled. West, when asked, stated he was considering discarding the jack of hearts, and the TD eventually, after consultation, ruled this was a demonstrable bridge reason. Do you agree? I have no idea whether they were playing Michaels cuebids, nor what East's carding would be. They were a first-time partnership."

 

IMO West may advance some nebulous "bridge reason" for his hesitation, but he could have known it was likely to fool South. South's play and interrogation of opponents may be imperfect -- but his play is well short of a SEWOG, and he did try to protect himself, so both sides should get the same score.[/hv]

[aguahombre]

Again, we don't get to assume that dumb thoughts are not Bridge thoughts to the person doing the alleged thinking. We need something more than this to decide the hesitator had nothing to think about and could have known...

[lamford]

Again, we don't get to assume that dumb thoughts are not Bridge thoughts to the person doing the alleged thinking. We need something more than this to decide the hesitator had nothing to think about and could have known...

In my opinion, the baring of the jack of hearts in tempo and the long BIT - about a minute - with nothing to think about merited a PP. This was a player who had won the event on more than one occasion (I find that I was misinformed and he won it only once).

 

Surely, demonstrable bridge reason means that - more than dumb thoughts.

Edited April 9, 2013 by lamford

[aguahombre]

I wonder if that is applicable when the player has already demonstrated dumb thought, regardless of whether is won something previously.

[lamford]

I wonder if that is applicable when the player has already demonstrated dumb thought, regardless of whether is won something previously.

If the thought could have been cunning, yes.

[aguahombre]

If the thought could have been cunning, yes.

It takes two things: no Bridge reason, AND could have been cunning. My point is we haven't got the first one, from which we would then go to the second. We don't get to say maybe no Bridge reason, and maybe cunning= nail em.

[Vampyr]

Again, we don't get to assume that dumb thoughts are not Bridge thoughts to the person doing the alleged thinking. We need something more than this to decide the hesitator had nothing to think about and could have known...

 

This was a very experienced player. I do not think, in any case, that L23 is supposed to be applied as narrowly as that -- ie you must determine whether the actual person, in the actual circumstances most likely "did know". I agree that it is not to be applied so broadly that we acknowledge that anyone could have known anything at any time. In this particular case, an experienced player (especially one who had bared the ♥J quickly, could know that declarer might be deceived by the long hesitation now.

 

The director didn't quite understand, and thought that there was no redress unless a hesitation was done deliberately to deceive.

 

I disagree with gnasher about whether thinking to decide on a deceptive card should be considered a legitimate bridge reason, but I do think that both positions are reasonable.

[mink]

After the first 7 tricks West was holding ♠K963, ♥J, ♣A. West knew that he had to discards 2 more cards on ♦. In trick 6 he had already pitched a ♥ in order to make South believe that he did not need to protect an ♥honor. But what if South would not care but cash ♥KT? On the other hand, if East had the Ten, it would be reasonable to discard the J so that his partner would know that he must keep his Ten guarded.

 

In my view this was really enough bridge reason to be allowed to think about it.

 

Karl

[aguahombre]

After the first 7 tricks West was holding ♠K963, ♥J, ♣A. West knew that he had to discards 2 more cards on ♦. In trick 6 he had already pitched a ♥ in order to make South believe that he did not need to protect an ♥honor. But what if South would not care but cash ♥KT? On the other hand, if East had the Ten, it would be reasonable to discard the J so that his partner would know that he must keep his Ten guarded.

 

In my view this was really enough bridge reason to be allowed to think about it.

And, after taking all the extra time, he might have realized that pitching the heart jack can only lose or break even while saving it can only gain or break even..and chose correctly to keep it.

[lamford]

In trick 6 he had already pitched a ♥ in order to make South believe that he did not need to protect an ♥honor.

Indeed that was good play, reinforced by the tank a trick later.

[gnasher]

In my opinion, the baring of the jack of hearts in tempo and the long BIT - about a minute - with nothing to think about merited a PP.

For what infraction?

[gnasher]

The only question South asked about carding obtained the answer "reverse attitude".

 

Did South ask that question specifically about the trick-one card, or was this a general question about carding? Also, did he ask what card East would play back at trick five from different spade holdings?

[gnasher]

After the first 7 tricks West was holding ♠K963, ♥J, ♣A. West knew that he had to discards 2 more cards on ♦. In trick 6 he had already pitched a ♥ in order to make South believe that he did not need to protect an ♥honor. But what if South would not care but cash ♥KT? On the other hand, if East had the Ten, it would be reasonable to discard the J so that his partner would know that he must keep his Ten guarded.

We haven't been told the exact plays in the diamond suit, but it seems likely that at the time of West's pause there was still an entry to dummy. If so, West would have to keep ♥J in order to protect his partner's putative 10 from a finesse.

 

The idea that East needs to be told to keep a heart guard seems doubtful: what else might he be considering keeping?

 

In my view this was really enough bridge reason to be allowed to think about it.

This might depend on the level of the player. Lamford's description of "a player who had won the event on more than one occasion" encompasses quite a wide range of abilities, but it seems unlikely that a player who could quickly work out to bare ♥J would then need a minute to decide whether to throw it away.

[lamford]

Did South ask that question specifically about the trick-one card, or was this a general question about carding? Also, did he ask what card East would play back at trick five from different spade holdings?

A general question about carding. And that was the only question South asked. He thought he was sure of the layout from West's tempo.

[Zelandakh]

It takes two things: no Bridge reason, AND could have been cunning. My point is we haven't got the first one, from which we would then go to the second. We don't get to say maybe no Bridge reason, and maybe cunning= nail em.

I do not think this is right. It takes no bridge reason + could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit to adjust the score. There is no requirement for cunning, nor even that the player realise that there was a problem, only that they could have known. Here I think it is clear that West could have known that they get an advantage so it is merely a question of whether there was a bridge reason. In my view, the wording within Law 73 suggests an adjustment here.

 

To get to a PP we need one of the magic words. That occurs in 73D as should (not often penalised)

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

and as may not (second strongest prohibition)

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 manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

 

It is clear that the first of these has been breached but not necessarily the second. There is enough doubt that a PP is probably unnecessary, although that is surely easier for the TD to decide in person.

[lamford]

For what infraction?

For not being "particularly careful" under 73D1.

 

Zel's reply, which crossed, is better than mine and I accept his view.

Edited April 9, 2013 by lamford

[lamford]

We haven't been told the exact plays in the diamond suit, but it seems likely that at the time of West's pause there was still an entry to dummy. If so, West would have to keep ♥J in order to protect his partner's putative 10 from a finesse.

After three rounds of diamonds, there was indeed 10x opposite 9x.