[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-July-13, 11:39, said:

A nice play; would you regard it as SEWoG not to find it?

That would be irrelevant, since it occured before the alleged infraction.

[nige1]

The director may be a brilliant card-player but he should not assume that the players are. Whatever the players' relative abilities, I don't think the director should regard declarer's tenuous "bridge-reason" as valid, when declarer "could have known" that his hesitation might deceive RHO.

An analogous case is where partner opens a Precision 1♥, RHO doubles and you hold a balanced Yarborough. You tank for several minutes before passing. As a result your opponents get a poor score. I don't think the director should accept your (possibly true) explanation that you were thinking of making some deceptive move in the hope of deflecting opponents from their game or slam.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-July-13, 11:55, said:

I agree. Why, then, did you ask "Is thinking with a singleton not an attempt to deceive?"

What we actually decide is whether he "could have been aware" that thinking with a singleton "might deceive". I should have worded the question in the standard "non-cheating" convoluted manner. But if we decide that it looks like an attempt to deceive, we may then conclude that he "could have been aware", so the question is pertinent.

[AlexJonson]

What layout(s) did East have in mind?

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-July-13, 14:24, said:

What layout(s) did East have in mind?

He surmised that South had ♠ xxx ♥ xx ♦ none ♣ KQJ10xxxx and, if he won the first spade, declarer would finesse the jack of spades for an overtrick. If he ducked, declarer might misguess the spades. He was an above average club player, and made the decision pretty quickly.

[sfi]

lamford, on 2011-July-13, 07:13, said:

Certainly with three small, many declarers would work out after a couple of seconds that the king or queen gains on stiff jack and never loses. Is this therefore not the image that a short BIT conveys? With a singleton, most declarers would play the king or queen immediately, just in case West had ducked.

Would declarer need a short break to work that out? The hesitation seems more legitimate with a singleton than with 3 small.

[mrdct]

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple:

• No demonstrable bridge reason; and
  
• Could've known it could work to his advantage.

I think we tick both boxes here, so I'm adjusting the result to 5♣-1.

[gnasher]

mrdct, on 2011-July-13, 20:53, said:

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple:

• No demonstrable bridge reason; and
• Could've known it could work to his advantage.

I think we tick both boxes here, so I'm adjusting the result to 5♣-1.

If declarer had xxx and East had taken his ace, would you make the same argument?

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-July-13, 14:33, said:

He surmised that South had ♠ xxx ♥ xx ♦ none ♣ KQJ10xxxx and, if he won the first spade, declarer would finesse the jack of spades for an overtrick. If he ducked, declarer might misguess the spades. He was an above average club player, and made the decision pretty quickly.

OK, a high risk MPs decision, but not unreasonable.

I'm inclined to think declarer needs to decide how to play the spades before leading his singleton. He has something to think about - the fact that the contract is hopeless - but this is probably not an acceptable way to play for a defensive error, although likely unintended.

[Free]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-13, 09:23, said:

I fear the point has been missed, K or Q is always correct play for declarer, but ducking smoothly is correct if declarer is 3208 to give declarer a guess second time. The diamond switch is automatic, if declarer has a singleton, he should be play the K or Q in tempo, he should be able to do this in either case, but there is really nothing to think about except deception opposite a singleton, as what does he think E will lead when he takes the A♠, must be a diamond, if declarer had any more hearts he'd have ruffed them.

I know why East should/shouldn't duck, but the hesitation doesn't suggest a 3 card ♠ at all imo. What reason could he possibly have with a 3=2=0=8 to think? You play the Q/K, go back to your hand with a ♦ ruff and play ♠ again. If the hesitation suggests anything, and I'm not saying it does, it suggests a singleton because in that case he only has 1 chance to finesse the Jack. Either way, whatever declarer holds, the Q/K is always best, and any reason for thinking about the situation will result in playing the Q/K anyway. If everyone plays smoothly and West shows an odd number of ♠s like he did, East can basically flip a coin to decide what to do.

The reason why East decided to duck is not for any bridge reason, but it's based on a hesitation by his opponent, which doesn't even suggest what East thought it suggested. If he would've played the Ace and opener appeared to have a 3=2=0=8, then he would have a point, but now he plays the exact opposite of what he should do opposite the suggested holding and complains afterwards.

[Cyberyeti]

Free, on 2011-July-14, 02:23, said:

I know why East should/shouldn't duck, but the hesitation doesn't suggest a 3 card ♠ at all imo. What reason could he possibly have with a 3=2=0=8 to think? You play the Q/K, go back to your hand with a ♦ ruff and play ♠ again. If the hesitation suggests anything, and I'm not saying it does, it suggests a singleton because in that case he only has 1 chance to finesse the Jack. Either way, whatever declarer holds, the Q/K is always best, and any reason for thinking about the situation will result in playing the Q/K anyway. If everyone plays smoothly and West shows an odd number of ♠s like he did, East can basically flip a coin to decide what to do.

The reason why East decided to duck is not for any bridge reason, but it's based on a hesitation by his opponent, which doesn't even suggest what East thought it suggested. If he would've played the Ace and opener appeared to have a 3=2=0=8, then he would have a point, but now he plays the exact opposite of what he should do opposite the suggested holding and complains afterwards.

Yeah, but if declarer has a singleton, this line of playing the 10 is completely bananas as he knows a diamond is going to come back whether the 10 loses to J or ace without the hollywood stuff.

If he has 3 and trusts his opponent to duck with Axx, he might think "shall I just play the 10 and get it over with" then the Ax in front case occurs to him and he plays high.

[keledor]

If the facts are as stated then score stands.

Declarer did not hesitate with a singleton - he'd played it and he is looking at KQ106 on the table.

Taking a couple of seconds to think in any situation except where I am next to play and hold a singleton isnt unreasonable.

Declarer considering whether to play the 10 even though it is a poor play isnt deceitful and would I even notice or complain about it - god no.

The only option by a director is to call South a liar and a cheat on a 2 second hesitation - guess what it ain't gonna happen.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-July-14, 00:39, said:

If declarer had xxx and East had taken his ace, would you make the same argument?

No, there would be a bridge reason; and for a player of his ability, it would take a couple of seconds to realise the king was always right. Are you really saying that you believe that South was telling the truth with the hogwash about making an overtrick? And once you decide he was lying, it is an easy step to decide he is a cheat. And substitute "could have been aware" and "could have been a" to make the sentence legal. For me it was the response to East's question that was the damning evidence, not the BIT itself.

[Free]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-July-14, 03:01, said:

Yeah, but if declarer has a singleton, this line of playing the 10 is completely bananas as he knows a diamond is going to come back whether the 10 loses to J or ace without the hollywood stuff.

Like I said before, playing the T is always bananas! That doesn't mean the player realizes this instantly. However, with a 3 card ♠ there's nothing to think about because you can finesse the Jack later on. So the hesitation definitely doesn't suggest declarer having a 3=2=0=8, which destroys any argumentation from East to correct the score. Therefore I wouldn't change the score.

[lamford]

Free, on 2011-July-14, 03:42, said:

Like I said before, playing the T is always bananas! That doesn't mean the player realizes this instantly. However, with a 3 card ♠ there's nothing to think about because you can finesse the Jack later on. So the hesitation definitely doesn't suggest declarer having a 3=2=0=8, which destroys any argumentation from East to correct the score. Therefore I wouldn't change the score.

With a singleton spade in South, the only line is to rise with the king, hoping that West was briefly suffering from acute attention order. But South can add to his chances by playing a slow king, as this might a) give East time to duck smoothly or b) make it seem that South has xxx, to an average player.

Those that claim that South doesn't realise instantly that the 10 is a stupid play with a singleton are wrong. South always intended to play the king, but saw an advantage in playing it slowly. And it is the answer to the question from East that gives it away. But you can interpret it two ways, just like Bentley's "Let him have it".

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 03:35, said:

No, there would be a bridge reason; and for a player of his ability, it would take a couple of seconds to realise the king was always right. Are you really saying that you believe that South was telling the truth with the hogwash about making an overtrick?

I wasn't there when he said it, and I have no idea who he is (except that it obviously wasn't you), so I can't judge the veracity of his statement. I'm certainly prepared to believe that there are players would need to think for a couple of seconds with x opposite KQ10, but not with xxx opposite KQ10.

I am sure that you would not have to think with either holding. Given that, I'm puzzled that you seem so certain that you know which holdings would, for this particular player, provoke a moment's thought and which would not.

Finally, the more you use words like "hogwash", "nonsense" and "subterfuge", the less inclined I am to believe in your objectivity about this matter.

[wank]

agree with everything gnasher said.

[Free]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 03:50, said:

Those that claim that South doesn't realise instantly that the 10 is a stupid play with a singleton are wrong. South always intended to play the king, but saw an advantage in playing it slowly. And it is the answer to the question from East that gives it away. But you can interpret it two ways, just like Bentley's "Let him have it".

Basically it comes down to believing one of the following statements:
- South isn't advanced enough to plan the play of 1 trick, he only thinks about what card to play when he has to play the card, and isn't able to instantly realise the T is a stupid play.
- South is master in playing mindgames. He knows that a hesitation clearly suggests he doesn't hold ♠xxx, but his RHO will think he holds this anyway if he plays the K slowly. Therefore he planned the hesitation and executed it perfectly with great success.

I'm more inclined to believe the first statement. You clearly prefer to believe ilogical thoughts of mind.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-July-14, 04:54, said:

Finally, the more you use words like "hogwash", "nonsense" and "subterfuge", the less inclined I am to believe in your objectivity about this matter.

That doesn't follow. I have indeed formed the opinion that I don't believe South, but when I first saw the hand I approached it objectively. mrdct expressed his opinion accurately and succintly. Others are entitled to theirs as well.

[lamford]

keledor, on 2011-July-14, 03:11, said:

Taking a couple of seconds to think in any situation except where I am next to play and hold a singleton isnt unreasonable.

That is not the case either; holding Qxxxx under KJ in dummy, would you think it reasonable to take a couple of seconds to play low when declarer leads the suit? Perhaps you should substitute some for any.