Nat Pairs 6 - hesitation in the play

[VixTD]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq3hj32dkjt85ca52&w=sak85hkt987d74ct3&n=s962hqdq3ckqj9876&e=sjt74ha654da962c4]399|300[/hv]

West is playing in 4♥. North leads ♣K then the queen, ruffed by West in the dummy. West then leads ♥7. North follows with ♥Q after a pause of several seconds. West takes the ace and plays small to the king on the next round. When North shows out they complain to my colleague that they were misled by the break in tempo and want a score adjustment.

 

Do they deserve one?

[WellSpyder]

Yes, in my view.

 

I know you can argue that playing the K only gains when N has QJ, and he wouldn't have anything to think about with that. But I don't think this is relevant. One thing you know for sure, is that he would have nothing to think about with Q singleton, and once S follows then QJ doubleton is the only possibility left. If you don't adjust here you give players carte blanche to mess around and see if it puts declarer off. So if N was really thinking about what they wanted for dinner, or even the bridge reason of what to discard on the next round of trumps, then I think they need to issue a disclaimer to avoid misleading declarer.

[pran]

Agreed.

 

North has no legitimate bridge reason for any hesitation in this position. He might have "saved his bacon" by stating "sorry, I had nothing to think about".

[TylerE]

Umm, isn't north entitled to consider whether to accept or reject the lead from the wrong hand?

 

With the second club ruffed in dummy the lead of the 7♥ from declarer's hand isn't really an expected continuation.

[barmar]

North has no legitimate bridge reason for any hesitation in this position. He might have "saved his bacon" by stating "sorry, I had nothing to think about".

Is being startled when the lead came from the wrong hand a "legitimate" reason?

[blackshoe]

West committed an infraction when he led from the wrong hand. North now has a choice: does he accept the LOOT or not? My ruling: given West's infraction, North's "hesitation" is in normal tempo for the circumstances. There has been no infraction by North, and his eventual play of the ♥Q accepts the LOOT, so there is no further rectification for that infraction. Play on.

[barmar]

Do we need to ask North whether he noticed that the lead came from the wrong hand, and his hesitation was actually because he was thinking about whether to accept? Or is it enough that it could be, and declarer should know that, so he has no right to take an inference from the hesitation?

 

It's likely that declarer didn't even realize that he led from the wrong hand, so would he be expected to realize how it affects LHO's tempo? Is that just too bad on the part of declarer? Once he makes a mistake, the opponents effectively get a free pass?

[WellSpyder]

Yes, in my view.

 

I know you can argue that playing the K only gains when N has QJ, and he wouldn't have anything to think about with that. But I don't think this is relevant. One thing you know for sure, is that he would have nothing to think about with Q singleton, and once S follows then QJ doubleton is the only possibility left. If you don't adjust here you give players carte blanche to mess around and see if it puts declarer off. So if N was really thinking about what they wanted for dinner, or even the bridge reason of what to discard on the next round of trumps, then I think they need to issue a disclaimer to avoid misleading declarer.

Oops! Could we have a facility to downvote one's own posts? (I'm happy not be able to upvote them!)

 

Others have done a rather better job than me in recognising that the lead came from the wrong hand at T3. In my view that completely alters the first assessment I gave of this case, and I think N has an entirely legitimate reason to think about whether or not he wants to accept this. Bad luck on declarer if he drew the wrong inference about what N had to be thinking about because he didn't realise N had a genuine choice at this point even with a singleton Q....

[pran]

Is being startled when the lead came from the wrong hand a "legitimate" reason?

No, not unless he draws attention to the irregularity and then summons the Director.

 

And remember

Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled

[WellSpyder]

No, not unless he draws attention to the irregularity and then summons the Director.

Being startled may not be regarded as a legitimate reason to hesitate with a singleton, but I would like to see some evidence that the laws do not allow you to think about what you want to do in this situation when you have a genuine choice to make, before accepting the assertion that it is not legitimate to think here.

[gordontd]

The reason for pausing is even stronger than that given in several replies: your partner is allowed to accept it too, but if you express different views yours will prevail. So it makes sense to give partner the opportunity to express an opinion before you do so yourself.

 

LAW 55: DECLARER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN

A. Declarer’s Lead Accepted

If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender

may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after

misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the

option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail.

[blackshoe]

Do we need to ask North whether he noticed that the lead came from the wrong hand, and his hesitation was actually because he was thinking about whether to accept? Or is it enough that it could be, and declarer should know that, so he has no right to take an inference from the hesitation?

 

It's likely that declarer didn't even realize that he led from the wrong hand, so would he be expected to realize how it affects LHO's tempo? Is that just too bad on the part of declarer? Once he makes a mistake, the opponents effectively get a free pass?

Not a free pass. We rule on preponderance of the evidence.

[axman]

Do we need to ask North whether he noticed that the lead came from the wrong hand, and his hesitation was actually because he was thinking about whether to accept? Or is it enough that it could be, and declarer should know that, so he has no right to take an inference from the hesitation?

 

It's likely that declarer didn't even realize that he led from the wrong hand, so would he be expected to realize how it affects LHO's tempo? Is that just too bad on the part of declarer? Once he makes a mistake, the opponents effectively get a free pass?

 

If we are smart enough to know (aren't we?) the implications of W's infraction there is no need to inquire as to why N did not play his Q immediately.

 

Even if we aren't smart enough, and hence ask, and are told N wasn't thinking about the infraction, it does not affect the ruling because declarer's expectation when he infracted was that N had something to think about- condoning the infraction.

 

Declarer has the right to take inference- but given the premise that his infraction ostensibly caused the tempo it is justice for him to not have such right- and certainly in this case whatever inference taken has no justification to appeal for a score better than was earned with the cards.

[blackshoe]

Declarer has the right to take inference- but given the premise that his infraction ostensibly caused the tempo it is justice for him to not have such right- and certainly in this case whatever inference taken has no justification to appeal for a score better than was earned with the cards.

Oh, he has the right — but the risk is his. His opponent's tempo does not mitigate that risk.

[Vampyr]

The reason for pausing is even stronger than that given in several replies: your partner is allowed to accept it too, but if you express different views yours will prevail. So it makes sense to give partner the opportunity to express an opinion before you do so yourself.

 

Yes, in this situation I always take a bit of time in case partner objects. Perhaps it should be illegal to auto-play, because this tells partner you had no reason to care which hand declarer played from.

[pran]

Being startled may not be regarded as a legitimate reason to hesitate with a singleton, but I would like to see some evidence that the laws do not allow you to think about what you want to do in this situation when you have a genuine choice to make, before accepting the assertion that it is not legitimate to think here.

There is a very good advice in such situations:

If your opponent commits an irregularity and you do not immediately know what you want to do With it then Call the Director!

 

If the opponent's play is no irregularity and you have a singleton in the suit led then you have absolutely no excuse for any hesitation.

[pran]

The reason for pausing is even stronger than that given in several replies: your partner is allowed to accept it too, but if you express different views yours will prevail. So it makes sense to give partner the opportunity to express an opinion before you do so yourself.

LAW 55: DECLARER’S LEAD OUT OF TURN

A. Declarer’s Lead Accepted

If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy’s hand, either defender

may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after

misinformation, see Law 47E1). If the defenders choose differently the

option expressed by the player next in turn shall prevail.

You have no reason to pause in order to give your partner such opportunity. Just call the director!

[weejonnie]

73D2 : 2. 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.

 

BUT

 

73F When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage

to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player

has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an

opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who

could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to

his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

 

North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause.

 

And (for completeness) don't forget law 55C (which deals in cases for example when declarer leads from dummy by 'mistake' when dummy has no obvious entry to find out if RHO objects).

 

C. Declarer Might Obtain Information

When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on

information obtained through the infraction, the Director may award an

adjusted score.

[pran]

73D2 : 2. 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.

 

BUT

 

73F When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage

to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player

has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an

opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who

could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to

his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

 

North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause.

 

And (for completeness) don't forget law 55C (which deals in cases for example when declarer leads from dummy by 'mistake' when dummy has no obvious entry to find out if RHO objects).

 

C. Declarer Might Obtain Information

When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on

information obtained through the infraction, the Director may award an

adjusted score.

 

"North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause."

 

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

[gordontd]

Yes, in this situation I always take a bit of time in case partner objects. Perhaps it should be illegal to auto-play, because this tells partner you had no reason to care which hand declarer played from.

That would be unfair to a player who follows because of not noticing that the lead was from the wrong hand.

[Vampyr]

"North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause."

 

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

 

The problem happened in a place we call The Real World, where nobody ever calls the director in this situation.

[Vampyr]

That would be unfair to a player who follows because of not noticing that the lead was from the wrong hand.

 

Yes, I was not entirely serious.

[wank]

"North has to decide whether to reject the lead from the wrong hand. This is a demonstrable bridge reason for the pause."

 

Yes - but only after he has called the Director!

 

obviously not. he can decide whether he wants to bother calling the director or just condone the lead from the wrong hand. this is of course perfectly legal because no attention has been drawn to the deviation from procedure.

[aguahombre]

Not a free pass. We rule on preponderance of the evidence.

A hesitation by the next player after Declarer commits an infraction is indeed not a "free pass". Nor do we need preponderance of anything to rule as you said above --- "Play on."

 

Declarer could have been so anxious to play through his LHO in this same case to get a reaction or a "free pass" of his own that he led from hand out of turn. If he doesn't like my "play on" ruling, I might mention L23 to him.

[sanst]

No, not unless he draws attention to the irregularity and then summons the Director.

Maybe he's wondering wether the lead should be from the dummy or the declarer. Even if he knows that it's a LOOT, he is under no obligation to call the director, let alone immediately and might consider, as others have pointed out, wether he's going to draw attention to the irregularity.