[karlson]

♣AJ9x
♣KQ

You decide to start the suit by cashing one from your hand and lead the Q. After lefty follows small you realize you made a mistake in your analysis and perhaps it's better to win this trick in dummy to save your hand entry. However it's going to take you some time to figure it out now. What should you do?

At the table declarer thought for quite a while before playing the ace from dummy. I was pretty shocked when he turned up with the ♣K, but no harm was done. His play seems quite unethical (presumably unintentionally), but I'm not sure exactly what he should have done. Is "sorry about the tank, I have the ♣K" reasonable or over the top?

[axman]

karlson, on 2011-July-03, 05:54, said:

♣AJ9x
♣KQ

You decide to start the suit by cashing one from your hand and lead the Q. After lefty follows small you realize you made a mistake in your analysis and perhaps it's better to win this trick in dummy to save your hand entry. However it's going to take you a some time to figure it out now. What should you do?

At the table declarer thought for quite a while before playing the ace from dummy. I was pretty shocked when he turned up with the ♣K, but no harm was done. His play seems quite unethical (presumably unintentionally), but I'm not sure exactly what he should have done. Is "sorry about the tank, I have the ♣K" reasonable or over the top?

Given what you have provided, the pause is unethical. You had the opportunity to do your thinking in a non tempo sensitive way and you did not. The reason you gave for the pause was that you considered [in the eleventh hour] the need to retain a C entry to your hand and to do that it was necessary to then play the CA. This is not a valid bridge reason because for that purpose it is self evident that any club would do as there were four clubs in dummy. There well might be a valid bridge reason for considering whether to win the ace or not- but that is not the reason you had. And that is the difference; because in that case you could well know that under those circumstances the only reason for the pause was to improperly deceive one or both defenders into inferring that you don’t hold the CK.

As mentioned, there may be a reason that is valid, and if an issue is made about a possible breach of L73 then that reason is sufficient defense [but perhaps not a morally right one]. But, of course, if you do not provide the valid reason with alacrity the veracity of any claim you do make would probably appear to be tainted- because in large part it is tainted.

As to what to do once you’ve passed the point of no return it should include doing nothing that could aggravate the situation and to sit tight until the end of the hand and hope that the opponents were not disadvantaged,

[mfa1010]

Over the top.

The player realized he had a problem (his analysis was flawed) only after he had played the ♣Q, so he stopped to consider where to win the trick. He can do that.

There is no law stating that if you fail to spot a problem early then you can somehow be barred from thinking about it when you actually do spot it.

[ahydra]

axman - that seems to be an epic amount of text to write instead of just a simple "Surely if you want to retain a club entry to hand you can play any club?" Though your point is correct, to an extent - one shouldn't think if you don't have a valid bridge reason to do so.

Perhaps therefore, to avoid any problems, (if you're on lead) do all your thinking related to a trick before leading to it?

I think adjusting for something like the case given would be a bit harsh, even in the case of an expert player who could see he could play any club (and it didn't matter whether dummy or declarer won this trick). If you realise part of your analysis is wrong, it seems reasonable to double-check the rest of it.

ahydra

[AlexJonson]

Sorry, I need to think about the hand seems appropriate.

[peachy]

mfa1010, on 2011-July-03, 07:34, said:

Over the top.

The player realized he had a problem (his analysis was flawed) only after he had played the ♣Q, so he stopped to consider where to win the trick. He can do that.

There is no law stating that if you fail to spot a problem early then you can somehow be barred from thinking about it when you actually do spot it.

But there are other laws "Proprieties" that cover the situation. Thinking, or breaking the tempo, is not an infraction in itself. However, if the player was not careful with tempo in a tempo-sensitive situation, AND damage to NOS ensued because of this, TD can adjust the table result.
PS. Ethics can be put aside; the innocent/ethical will be treated same as the other kind. Unless, of course, there is evidence of deception; normally, there isn't and normally such would be rare anyway.

[mrdct]

mfa1010, on 2011-July-03, 07:34, said:

There is no law stating that if you fail to spot a problem early then you can somehow be barred from thinking about it when you actually do spot it.

Whilst not "barring" you from going into the tank in such circumstances, Law 73D1 most certainly requires players to be "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side" and Law 73F gives the NOS protection if they incorrectly draw an inference from the dodgy tank. If I found myself in this situation, I would announce to the table that I have the ♣K to protect myself as it's quite foreseeable that either opponent could now miscount the location of the points by placing the ♣K in their respective partners' hands.

This reminds me of an appeals case from a Bermuda Bowl years ago when Zia was declaring and Meckstroth, his LHO, nodded-off mid hand when Zia was in a very long tank working out how to play something like ♥xx opposite ♥KJxx for one loser. I think Meckstroth held Qx or Qxx and when Zia eventually lead a ♥ Meckstroth did nothing for a few moments and then realised it was his turn to play, said "sorry" and played a low ♥. Zia apparently concluded that the "sorry" comment could only be consistent with Ax or Axx, played K and went one down. I've never seen the appeals report, but if I recall correctly, the TD ruled table result stands but the appeals committee gave Zia his contract. Apologies if I have any of those details wrong, but the point is that the NOS does have a quite a bit of protection when opponents make extraneous comments, gestures and tempos which are not actually consistent with what they are holding.

[gordontd]

karlson, on 2011-July-03, 05:54, said:

♣AJ9x
♣KQ

You decide to start the suit by cashing one from your hand and lead the Q. After lefty follows small you realize you made a mistake in your analysis and perhaps it's better to win this trick in dummy to save your hand entry. However it's going to take you some time to figure it out now. What should you do?

At the table declarer thought for quite a while before playing the ace from dummy. I was pretty shocked when he turned up with the ♣K, but no harm was done. His play seems quite unethical (presumably unintentionally), but I'm not sure exactly what he should have done. Is "sorry about the tank, I have the ♣K" reasonable or over the top?

I ruled against a player in this situation last year: he led the Q because he believed it would be more likely to get a true signal, and then he paused to see what the signal was, to decide which hand he wanted to end up in. His LHO later mis-defended on the basis that RHO "must" have the K.

The ruling went to appeal, and the committee overturned the ruling on the basis that he had a genuine bridge reason for his actions.

I later had a conversation with one of the AC members (one of the top players in the country) and questioned the idea that, in this sort of apparent finesse situation, the lead of the Q would be more likely to get a true signal from LHO. He agreed that it wouldn't, but said that the committee ruled as they did because they believed that the player in question (also a very strong player) had believed that this was the way to get a true signal.

[mfa1010]

To peachy:

"Being careful etc." cannot be extended to apply to a situation where I am at the killpoint and haven't spotted the problem before then. Bridge is a difficult game and this happens all the time (at least for me ). "Being careful etc." is applicaple only when there is a choice as to when to think. The principle doesn't override the right to think in the first place which is a fundamental right when we have a bridge problem.

So:
- Playing the ♣Q and then stopping in the middle of the trick to think about how to handle spades later is not ok.
- With the actual problem: If the player sees the problem before playing the ♣Q, then it is likely not ok to play the ♣Q and then think to solve the problem. He should be more careful not to mislead and instead think in advance.
- With the actual problem: If the player plays the ♣Q and not until then realizes his problem, he can think at that point. He has no choice. Now is the only possible time to think. We can't demand of him that he should be a better bridge player who sees his problems ealier.

mrdct, on 2011-July-03, 21:50, said:

This reminds me of an appeals case from a Bermuda Bowl years ago when Zia was declaring and Meckstroth, his LHO, nodded-off mid hand when Zia was in a very long tank working out how to play something like ♥xx opposite ♥KJxx for one loser. I think Meckstroth held Qx or Qxx and when Zia eventually lead a ♥ Meckstroth did nothing for a few moments and then realised it was his turn to play, said "sorry" and played a low ♥. Zia apparently concluded that the "sorry" comment could only be consistent with Ax or Axx, played K and went one down. I've never seen the appeals report, but if I recall correctly, the TD ruled table result stands but the appeals committee gave Zia his contract. Apologies if I have any of those details wrong, but the point is that the NOS does have a quite a bit of protection when opponents make extraneous comments, gestures and tempos which are not actually consistent with what they are holding.

This tells us that comments during the play are best to be avoided, since they can easily be misunderstood and mislead.

[ggwhiz]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-03, 13:49, said:

Sorry, I need to think about the hand seems appropriate.

I think that's called for as a courtesy and doesn't necessarily give the location of the ♣K away. However someone who has been so careless about planning the play is unlikely to be up to this task.

I may be mistaken but since there is a logical bridge reason for the tank (self inflicted and ill timed) I don't think you have recourse under the law unless you are a well known expert and the hesitator is a plodder like me.

It can be THE nightmare scenario for a committee.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2011-July-03, 07:16, said:

Given what you have provided, the pause is unethical.

No. I agree, it may be improper, but you have no evidence that it was unethical.

If you fail to follow Law 73D1 [**] in a tempo-sensitive position you have broken the Law, your tempo is improper. But only if you do it deliberately is your action unethical.

[**] I have quoted the Law number from memory so apologies if it is wrong.

[alphatango]

Reading this thread reminded me of the following club position, which was part of the final exam for the 2001 EBL directing course (Q9, questions here, answers here):

JT2

AK9865

Quoting from the exam paper: "Trick 2: ♣J , 4 , very long hesitation … K , 3". Declarer now follows up by leading a small card from hand, and LHO ducks from his original holding of Q73.

Again from the paper: "West calls the TD . South , not a very strong player said that he suddenly realized that it would be wrong to cash the ♣K and ♣A [for entry reasons] , in case the clubs were divided 3-1."

The supplied answer: "...South, on his level, has a bridge reason for his pause for thought. Result stands."

I recall being uncomfortable with that answer when I read it. It seems to me that it is a situation where the pause may not be unethical, but the laws still require an adjustment (failing to maintain tempo in a sensitive situation). But if this is the answer in an EBL TD exam, then maybe...?

[kenrexford]

There is a difference between hesitations by the defense and hesitations by Declarer, namely in that Declarer cannot give information intentionally or inadvertently to his partner in a way that matters. I mention this only as a prelude to my thoughts on this issue.

What I am thinking is that it might be easier for all involved to change the rules to allow Declarer to make any hesitations or comments that he wants, even if intentionally to mislead the opponents. Then, if you fall for it as a defender, this is just part of the game. But, you are looking for it and can read, perhaps, real hesitations from fake ones.

It just seems easier and not inconsistent with the game. I could see a rule where a comment like "I am leading the Queen to possibly finesse, and I do not have the King -- who has it?" is allowed without messing with the purity of the game.

What I hate are rules that rely upon assessments of motives, interpretation of fact on the basis of conflicting and biased memories, assessments of "bridge logic" by people who have none or by people who disagree amongst themselves (for a fee if you want their opinion), and the like. These ambiguous rules often end up resolved by interesting factors like favoritism, politics, age of the perp, age of the accuser, level of contest, how angry the TD is that day, etc.

[axman]

alphatango, on 2011-July-06, 12:42, said:

Reading this thread reminded me of the following club position, which was part of the final exam for the 2001 EBL directing course (Q9, questions here, answers here):

JT2

AK9865

Quoting from the exam paper: "Trick 2: ♣J , 4 , very long hesitation … K , 3". Declarer now follows up by leading a small card from hand, and LHO ducks from his original holding of Q73.

Again from the paper: "West calls the TD . South , not a very strong player said that he suddenly realized that it would be wrong to cash the ♣K and ♣A [for entry reasons] , in case the clubs were divided 3-1."

The supplied answer: "...South, on his level, has a bridge reason for his pause for thought. Result stands."

I recall being uncomfortable with that answer when I read it. It seems to me that it is a situation where the pause may not be unethical, but the laws still require an adjustment (failing to maintain tempo in a sensitive situation). But if this is the answer in an EBL TD exam, then maybe...?

Off the top of my head I would fail the person that constructed the exam. As in, when the TD responds he should ascertain the facts such as the purpose of the call and those facts were not given; and supposedly [I don’t assume, I find out] the reason for the call was that W felt he had been improperly deceived. The [first] point being what claim W was making [what inference justified him ducking the Q- for instance]? Then, once the TD knows what damage is claimed he is in a position to ascertain the validity of the claim. The [second] failing point consists of the supplied answer being grossly incomplete: because saying that S had a valid bridge reason to pause does not in itself make it so and the players are entitled to know upon what they have been judged. In other words the valid bridge reason needs to be supplied so that it can be scrutinized for its validity.

In this way the players are in a position to judge accurately the soundness of the ruling and should they judge it unsound they can know upon what basis to appeal.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2011-July-04, 02:51, said:

I later had a conversation with one of the AC members (one of the top players in the country) and questioned the idea that, in this sort of apparent finesse situation, the lead of the Q would be more likely to get a true signal from LHO. He agreed that it wouldn't, but said that the committee ruled as they did because they believed that the player in question (also a very strong player) had believed that this was the way to get a true signal.

Well, he's not that strong, is he. The committee seem to have contradicted themselves.

[nige1]

karlson, on 2011-July-03, 05:54, said:

Is "sorry about the tank, I have the ♣K" reasonable or over the top?

IMO, that statement (or something similar) is more reasonable than ensuring that your performance leaves a false impression in the minds of both opponents.

[barmar]

axman, on 2011-July-06, 15:31, said:

Off the top of my head I would fail the person that constructed the exam. As in, when the TD responds he should ascertain the facts such as the purpose of the call and those facts were not given; and supposedly [I don’t assume, I find out] the reason for the call was that W felt he had been improperly deceived. The [first] point being what claim W was making [what inference justified him ducking the Q- for instance]? Then, once the TD knows what damage is claimed he is in a position to ascertain the validity of the claim. The [second] failing point consists of the supplied answer being grossly incomplete: because saying that S had a valid bridge reason to pause does not in itself make it so and the players are entitled to know upon what they have been judged. In other words the valid bridge reason needs to be supplied so that it can be scrutinized for its validity.

In this way the players are in a position to judge accurately the soundness of the ruling and should they judge it unsound they can know upon what basis to appeal.

Presumably West's contention is that South had Kxxxx, and had somehow discerned that clubs were divided Qxx-Ax, so the only way for him to get 4 tricks from the suit would be for West's Q to crash under East's A, and he wasn't going to fall for that. But I don't see how South's hesitation at that particular point in the play suggests that this was what he was doing.

They said South was not a strong player. I'm not sure an average player would figure out the layout so accurately, and then come up with this way to solve it. And when mediocre players hesitate, you can't generally take much inference from it, since they often don't know what they're doing, and they're not so good at planning ahead of time. If they could do this, they would be stronger players.