Remonstrable

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak75hkqtdt5cqj52&w=s9h9643dk7642c963&n=s63haj5daq8cakt74&e=sqjt842h872dj93c8&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2s(5-9%20six-cards)2np6nppp]399|300[/hv]

There was some ill-feeling on the above hand at a local club last night. West dutifully led his spade against 6NT and declarer won, and cashed his rounded-suit winners, ending in North. West pitched two diamonds (high-low, discouraging) and East two spades and a diamond. On the last club East went into the tank and eventually emerged, a good minute later, with the nine of diamonds. Declarer confidently cashed the ace of diamonds, but was disappointed when East's putative king of diamonds had gained an eye since he last saw him. Declarer went one off, as West had the long heart.

 

South asked East what he was thinking about, and he replied immediately. "Well, I couldn't throw a spade, as you would throw me in with a spade and I would have to lead a diamond, finessing my partner's king, assuming he had it or you would have twelve tricks. If I threw a diamond you might think I had been squeezed, as I had opened quite light by our standards, and I was likely to have the king of diamonds, so you might cash the ace. So I threw a diamond." South replied, "Did it take you a minute using one of your two brain cells to work that out?", but the TD arrived before the situation got out of hand.

 

The TD consulted with some colleagues, but he was confident that East's answer was true, and he had a demonstrable bridge reason for the long tank, however weak, so he ruled the score stood. Do you agree?

[blackshoe]

TD apparently did not address South's violation of Law 74A2. I think he should have done so. Or was he not informed of it?

[barmar]

I'm just happy that South didn't complain that East is outside the stated 5-9 HCP range for the weak 2.

[RMB1]

I'm just happy that South didn't complain that East is outside the stated 5-9 HCP range for the weak 2.

+1

 

That was my first thought when I started reading the auction.

[barmar]

I can't find "remonstrable" in any English dictionary. Remonstrative, perhaps? Defined as "describing a forcefully reproachful protest".

[PhilKing]

It's an anagram of "sermon tabler", but I doubt the sermon will end soon.

 

Anyway, I, for one, am appalled - South should have run the ♦T at trick two, while the chances of slipping past West's putative Jxxxx are at their highest.

 

Perhaps it's no worse than playing someone for 14 cards, so I might take pity and give our imaginary declarer his contract.

[gnasher]

I can't find "remonstrable" in any English dictionary. Remonstrative, perhaps? Defined as "describing a forcefully reproachful protest".

 

"Remonstrable" is as different from "remonstrative" as "demonstrable" is from "demonstrative":

 

remonstrable, adj

Deserving of remonstration or protest; objectionable.

1954 PMLA 69 1153 Most comedy..assumes that unconventional deeds are remonstrable, and that variations from the norm of everyday life are to be censured.

2000 J. Sherman Baron Brand (2007) vii. 61 She had done nothing remonstrable, nothing bad.

 

Curiously, another meaning of "remonstrable" is as a synonym for "demonstrable", and similarly "remonstrate" can be a synonym for "demonstrate".

[gnasher]

Anyway, I, for one, am appalled - South should have run the ♦T at trick two, while the chances of slipping past West's putative Jxxxx are at their highest.

 

Perhaps it's no worse than playing someone for 14 cards, so I might take pity and give our imaginary declarer his contract.

This misplay isn't relevant, because it occurred before the alleged infraction.

[billw55]

Result stands.

[gnasher]

I think that the key to this is the word "the" in "demonstrable bridge reason for the action".

 

East may well have a demonstrable bridge reason for a pause, but he didn't have one for this particular pause, which lasted far longer than he could possibly need for what he said he was thinking about. Hence I adjust the score.

[Vampyr]

If I threw a slow diamond you might think I had been squeezed,

 

FYP

[akwoo]

I think that the key to this is the word "the" in "demonstrable bridge reason for the action".

 

East may well have a demonstrable bridge reason for a pause, but he didn't have one for this particular pause, which lasted far longer than he could possibly need for what he said he was thinking about. Hence I adjust the score.

 

I think you vastly overestimate most players' thinking speed.

 

For an experienced player - yes a minute is way too long to think about this.

 

For someone who is just becoming aware that a squeeze is not always an act of God (well, declarer) they have no influence or control over, thinking through this can take quite a long while, and, indeed, they don't do this kind of thinking on every hand because (a) the game would slow to a crawl and (b) they would be mentally exhausted after a couple rounds. It's not easy to keep straight all the hypotheticals about what declarer has, what declarer thinks you have, and what that implies for what partner has and what declarer thinks partner has. It can easily going back to the situation a few times in one's head to make sure one has thought through it correctly.

 

Just the other day, I took partner's even count signal to show 2 rather than 4 when, in fact, I had completely obvious reasons to be fairly sure there was no way he had 11 cards in the other 3 suits. I'm sure if I'd tanked for a minute I would've realized the bidding and a couple of earlier cards clearly meant that, but it would take at least that long.

[Vampyr]

I think you vastly overestimate most players' thinking speed.

 

Yes gnasher, not everyone makes their decisions at the speed of sound like you do ;)

[billw55]

Agree it is not too long for an average player. It may seem like forever when sitting there doing nothing at a bridge table, but 60 seconds is really not very long. I probably pause that long a few times per session (nobody minds because otherwise I keep a fairly quick tempo). And sometimes I eventually realize that the whole line of thinking is wrong, or less complicated than I thought. Or maybe I don't realize it. In no case has anyone asked for a ruling about it though.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak75hkqtdt5cqj52&w=s9h9643dk7642c963&n=s63haj5daq8cakt74&e=sqjt842h872dj93c8&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=2s(5-9%20six-cards)2np6nppp]399|300| lamford writes "There was some ill-feeling on the above hand at a local club last night. West dutifully led his spade against 6NT and declarer won, and cashed his rounded-suit winners, ending in North. West pitched two diamonds (high-low, discouraging) and East two spades and a diamond. On the last club East went into the tank and eventually emerged, a good minute later, with the nine of diamonds. Declarer confidently cashed the ace of diamonds, but was disappointed when East's putative king of diamonds had gained an eye since he last saw him. Declarer went one off, as West had the long heart. South asked East what he was thinking about, and he replied immediately. "Well, I couldn't throw a spade, as you would throw me in with a spade and I would have to lead a diamond, finessing my partner's king, assuming he had it or you would have twelve tricks. If I threw a diamond you might think I had been squeezed, as I had opened quite light by our standards, and I was likely to have the king of diamonds, so you might cash the ace. So I threw a diamond." South replied, "Did it take you a minute using one of your two brain cells to work that out?", but the TD arrived before the situation got out of hand. The TD consulted with some colleagues, but he was confident that East's answer was true, and he had a demonstrable bridge reason for the long tank, however weak, so he ruled the score stood. Do you agree?"

 

Agree with blackshoe: the director should penalize declarer for of his "two brain cells" remark; and gnasher: the director should rule 6N= because East could know his tank would mislead declarer (as in previous lamford case)[/hv]

[blackshoe]

I read somewhere once that "fast players don't play fast, they just play slow less often". B-)

[lamford]

I think that the key to this is the word "the" in "demonstrable bridge reason for the action".

 

East may well have a demonstrable bridge reason for a pause, but he didn't have one for this particular pause, which lasted far longer than he could possibly need for what he said he was thinking about. Hence I adjust the score.

I totally agree with your approach, which must be correct. But the Chief TD of the EBU probably does not. He thinks: "my principle is that if X was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress." We are told the TD was confident the answer was true, and, in the finding of fact we generally leave that to the TD.

 

So, against weak players, in EBU land, draw inferences about their weak bits at your peril. And East thought he was being flattered by the "two brain cells" remark, so he did not complain to the TD.

[lamford]

Anyway, I, for one, am appalled - South should have run the ♦T at trick two, while the chances of slipping past West's putative Jxxxx are at their highest.

South considered that, I am told, but he was worried that the clearly expert East would win with the jack and return a spade. Declarer would still have to choose between the finesse and the squeeze in the three-card ending. West was also an expert, and would always cover with Jxxx(x) and the same problem would have occurred with the nine of diamonds the key card. He thought that if East had KJx, it would be more clear that he had been squeezed if declarer just cashed winners.

 

And it is clear that for something to be SEWoG in your book, it just has to fail to follow Deep Finesse.

[barmar]

Agree it is not too long for an average player. It may seem like forever when sitting there doing nothing at a bridge table, but 60 seconds is really not very long.

Even the required 10 second pause after a skip bid can seem like a long time if you don't actually have something to think about. I believe that most players who attempt to follow the skip bid rule only last 5-7 seconds.

 

I'm reminded of this quote from Einstein: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

[blackshoe]

I'm reminded of this quote from Einstein: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

Heh. Smart guy, that Einstein. B-)

[mink]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk75hdt5c&n=s6hdaq8ct]133|200[/hv]

 

This was the situation when South played the last ♣ from the dummy. He knew that East had 3 ♠ cards and 2 ♦ cards left. If I was South and saw East pitching a ♦ after thinking for a minute, I would be sure that he as not the ♦K, because everybody knows that you have to play a ♦ immediately if you are going to bare the king. First thinking and then baring the king is something normal club level players do, but not true experts. So I would faithfully cross to the hand in ♠ and take the ♦-finesse. If the finnesse fails because he has really bared the king after thinking about it, I would be really embarrassed and call the director because East, the expert, behaved like an ordinary player in order to fool me.

 

Apart from that, I really believe that the right to think whenever I have a bridge reason trumps all obligations not to mislead opps. Nowhere in the Laws it is mentioned that I have the obligation to take a thinking tank some tricks before the problem has fully evolved in order to avoid that opps are misled. I rather think that they still find a way to be misled if I think in advance.

 

Karl

[billw55]

Apart from that, I really believe that the right to think whenever I have a bridge reason trumps all obligations not to mislead opps. Nowhere in the Laws it is mentioned that I have the obligation to take a thinking tank some tricks before the problem has fully evolved in order to avoid that opps are misled. I rather think that they still find a way to be misled if I think in advance.

+1

[blackshoe]

I really believe that the right to think whenever I have a bridge reason trumps all obligations not to mislead opps.

This goes just a bit too far. The relevant law is

 

Law 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.

This law clearly shows that the right to think when one has a bridge reason does not trump all obligations. One still has an obligation to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side".

[Zelandakh]

What mink seems to be saying here is that you are allowed to play poker with declarer here if you happen to have any reasonable reason for thinking. That is not bridge as I know it, nor I think supported by the laws.

[billw55]

What mink seems to be saying here is that you are allowed to play poker with declarer here if you happen to have any reasonable reason for thinking. That is not bridge as I know it, nor I think supported by the laws.

I don't think that is what he was saying at all. I think he was saying that if you have something genuine to think about, you should be able to.

 

I know there are things that I would need time to work out, that other posters on this forum would not. I do not think that I deserve to be ruled against in such a case. For that matter, I know there are other players who would need time over things that I do not; and I would not seek a ruling over it. What about you Zel? Can you see everything as quickly as gnasher, or Josh or Justin? If you are playing them, should you be ruled against in such a case where you do think?