pran Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Rule? No. I will say that I don't think we can make assumptions about a particular case if the OP doesn't specify all the pertinent facts.Do we have any reason to believe that OP didn't specify all the pertinent facts whenWest 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Yes we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted May 3, 2015 Report Share Posted May 3, 2015 Do we have any reason to believe that OP didn't specify all the pertinent facts whenI think those are all the relevant facts. Where do you see any suspicion for an irregularity by North? All I see is an accusation by West, which can easily be understood by the natural assumption that West didn't realize he had led out of turn. But to anybody who realizes West led out of turn, there is no reason to suspect any irregularity by North. North has been thinking for a few seconds. Well, North is allowed to think for a few seconds if he has a bridge reason. Did he have a bridge reason? Yes. So, no irregularity. End of story. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 4, 2015 Report Share Posted May 4, 2015 73D1 says that an opponent draws an inference from an opponent's variation at his own risk. When combined with the 73F clause about "demonstrable bridge reason", what this means is that if you incorrectly guess what the opponent was thinking about, you're not protected, so long as he had a legitimate need to think. So if North was thinking about whether to accept the lead from the wrong hand, but West assumes he was thinking about which card to play, West is out of luck. But I think in order to make that ruling, we need to know if that's what North was thinking about. If not, then he did not actually have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for the hesitation. If he didn't notice the LOOT, then he failed to be "particularly careful" in a tempo-sensitive situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.