[lamford]

Free, on 2011-July-14, 06:16, said:

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.

No, it is not necessary to decide between those statements at all. The only tests here are:

a) was there a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think on the actual hand?
b) if it is decided there is not, then the actual shape (1-2-2-8) is ruled out to East (South would never think).
c) could South have been aware the BIT would deceive? I would answer: yes; for this level of player it would be of the duration consistent with xxx opposite KQ10x, i.e. fairly short, but longer than he would think with a singleton.
d) if East is lured into thinking that South is 3-2-0-8, as far as I can see the only other shape where it matters, then he will always duck.
e) we need only consider South's reply to East for the purpose of deciding whether we believe the demonstrable bridge reason.

Once we go through those, I think we adjust to 5C - 1. I would also consider a PP.

[Free]

By posting here I presume you wanted an objective answer. You received it, and pretty much nobody agrees with you. Why are you, the so called 'objective' poster (definitely not East - we must be crazy for thinking that), trying to convince people with false arguments?

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:13, said:

a) was there a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think on the actual hand?

It's not as easy as you make it seem. South has explained the reason why he thought before playing the K. Depending on his skill, current score, fatigue,... his explanation can be a valid reason. No 2 players are the same, and if the best player in the world would hesitate it wouldn't be acceptable, but we know nothing about South except what you've told us.

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:13, said:

b) if it is decided there is not, then the actual shape (1-2-2-8) is ruled out to East (South would never think).

I don't think there's a clear answer to A, so B isn't 100% applicable. In either case, that's what you claim and what I think is complete nonsense. South can only think with a 1=2=2=8, with any other holding he definitely wouldn't have a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think. If you believe that the hesitation rules out a 1=2=2=8 to East, then I get the feeling you were East and blundered...

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:13, said:

c) could the BIT have deceived? I would answer: yes; for this level of player it would be of the duration consistent with xxx opposite KQ10x, i.e. fairly short, but longer than he would think with a singleton.

The BIT could only deceive if declarer suggests something other than his holding. Like I've said many times already, the hesitation suggests singleton ♠, and guess what, declarer had a singleton ♠. So in what way can he deceive someone??

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:13, said:

d) if East is lured into thinking that South is 3-2-0-8, as far as I can see the only other shape where it matters, then he will always duck.

If East is lured into thinking that South is 3=2=0=8, then East has a lot to learn about this game. He should be glad this occured so he can learn from this experience and realize that the hesitation suggests South holding singleton ♠.

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:13, said:

e) we need only consider South's reply to East for the purpose of deciding whether we believe the demonstrable bridge reason.

Going short through the corner, what a great way to convince anyone.

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:13, said:

Once we go through those, I think we adjust to 5C - 1.

Sorry, but LOL.

[semeai]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 08:06, said:

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.

Can I spend a few seconds deciding whether it would ever be necessary to unblock the king or whether I can afford to make the more normal looking play of the Jack, which better conceals the position?

[CSGibson]

lamford, on 2011-July-13, 10:21, said:

I am impressed with your methods which allow you to distinguish between 5-4-3-1 and 3-4-5-1 with a discard; no doubt there are some such methods, but not at the club in question which is the only relevant thing. From a bridge point of view this is a tough play for East, not at IMPs where he will just win and play a diamond, but at matchpoints, where it looks like the auction will be the same everywhere. How do you plan to signal here?

A spade discard of any kind clarifies the position. East would not discard from 3 to the J or from any 4 card holding, so it must be a 5 card holding.

[ggwhiz]

I believe you say East is an above average club player.

Either way there is no mention of what West pitched on the 2nd round of trumps.

Apparently this pair doesn't play signals and they earned this result.

I would only have a strong opinion on declarers motives if I was at the table

[lamford]

CSGibson, on 2011-July-14, 09:09, said:

A spade discard of any kind clarifies the position. East would not discard from 3 to the J or from any 4 card holding, so it must be a 5 card holding.

It is West who discarded, and I do not know what he discarded. The JS would indeed be the best discard, as someone pointed out; would you deny redress for that reason?

[lamford]

semeai, on 2011-July-14, 09:05, said:

Can I spend a few seconds deciding whether it would ever be necessary to unblock the king or whether I can afford to make the more normal looking play of the Jack, which better conceals the position?

I was referring to the person with Qxxxx, but your question reminded me of when declarer had KJx opposite Qx in a slam. Declarer thought for a while when the KJx was led through (not on the opening lead), and played the king. We played the suit back, fatally, but did not get a ruling because declarer had what was deemed to be a demonstrable bridge reason.

[alphatango]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 09:16, said:

It is West who discarded, and I do not know what he discarded. The JS would indeed be the best discard, as someone pointed out; would you deny redress for that reason?

I pointed out that West could rise with the SJ on the spade lead to prevent East from having this decision. Failure to do so is not SEWoG.

However, as CSGibson points out, had West pitched a spade on the second round of trumps, there are now no layouts where the duck will gain, and East's duck might well be in SEWoG territory, depending on how strong they are.

[lamford]

Free, on 2011-July-14, 08:36, said:

By posting here I presume you wanted an objective answer. You received it, and pretty much nobody agrees with you.

I suggest that you scan through the thread again.

hanoi5, mrdct, nige1, cyberyeti and AlexJonson agree with an adjustment, although the last is only "inclined" to do so. hrothgar, hotshot, gnasher, wank, Free, alphatango, sfi, keledor, CS Gibson, ggwhiz do not, although it should be noted that several of these argue that the defence should have discarded better, misunderstanding the law. A misdefence before the infraction, as gnasher points out, would not deny redress. semeai just asks a question.

That is the whole purpose of the forum, and the opinions of directors are the ones I would most value.

[lamford]

alphatango, on 2011-July-14, 09:27, said:

I pointed out that West could rise with the SJ on the spade lead to prevent East from having this decision. Failure to do so is not SEWoG.

However, as CSGibson points out, had West pitched a spade on the second round of trumps, there are now no layouts where the duck will gain, and East's duck might well be in SEWoG territory, depending on how strong they are.

I am told that West discarded the eight of diamonds, encouraging. And West had the eight and South the seven, I am also told.

[semeai]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 09:23, said:

I was referring to the person with Qxxxx, but your question reminded me of when declarer had KJx opposite Qx in a slam. Declarer thought for a while when the KJx was led through (not on the opening lead), and played the king. We played the suit back, fatally, but did not get a ruling because declarer had what was deemed to be a demonstrable bridge reason.

Interesting. I was going to object and say there was no bridge reason, but I guess I see it now: it's the opposite of what I was suggesting with the Qxxxx-KJ situation. Declarer could be deciding whether he needed to play the J, keeping the K around to possibly overtake the Q, or whether he can afford to make the more deceptive play of the K, which may have the effect it did on you: it was taken by the A and you were left to wonder whether there was still a further trick in the suit for you.

Probably on both of these suit combinations the length of the huddle together with how much keeping the ability to overtake makes any sense in the context of the rest of the hand matters?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-July-13, 10:50, said:

If we decide that thinking of playing the 10 in this situation was a "demonstrable bridge reason" then we allow the score to stand. If not then we have to decide whether South could have known that thinking and playing the king could deceive. If we decide not, again we allow the score to stand. I submit that it was not a demonstrable bridge reason, and he could have been aware that the BIT would deceive.

Deciding whether to play the 10 or another spade in this situation is a demonstrable bridge reason. If we're satisfied that's what the pause was about, there's no reason to adjust. If we're satisfied the pause wasn't for a demonstrable bridge reason, then we need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent, and could he have known at the time that it could work to his benefit?

[alphatango]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 09:36, said:

hrothgar, hotshot, gnasher, wank, Free, alphatango, sfi, keledor, CS Gibson, ggwhiz do not [agree with an adjustment], although it should be noted that several of these argue that the defence should have discarded better, misunderstanding the law. A misdefence before the infraction, as gnasher points out, would not deny redress.

Actually, I expressed no opinion on the merits of the question (because I had not yet considered it seriously), and thus I do not believe I have (yet) demonstrated any misunderstanding of the law. I will attempt to do so below.

(I pointed out a possible play by West which I found interesting, and I agreed with CSGibson that if a discard had previously been made in the suit, East would have far less (no?) reason to duck. The former is not relevant to any ruling; the latter is potentially relevant for denying redress if we decide that an adjustment is in order.)

* * *

Since my opinion appears to be invited, here it is. For the record, I do direct, although I hope that my arguments are judged on their logical merits rather than on the basis of any directing experience.

On the question of whether South had a demonstrable bridge reason or not, I do not think the table director's view was manifestly incorrect, and I would defer to the judgement of the person who was there.

Suppose, arguendo, that we decide that South did not have a demonstrable bridge reason to hesitate.The "false inference" drawn by the opponent must also meet some unwritten standard of reasonableness, else I would be able to get an adjustment when I led towards AKJT987 on table, LHO hesitated, and I lost the finesse to Qx.

I do not think that there is a sufficiently strong logical connection between the hesitation and the idea that declarer must have 3=2=0=8 rather than 1=2=2=8. There is at least as much reason for thought with the latter shape as the former. There is no decision to be made (on the first round) with the former shape; with the latter you are at least deciding between LHO being weak enough to duck the SA and RHO being weak enough to not return a diamond! East took the view that 3=2=0=8 might have something to think about while 1=2=2=8 would never think; I do not believe that view is correct. Is it nevertheless reasonable enough to meet the unwritten standard? I don't know, because it's unwritten. (We might do well to clarify that standard in a future edition, of course, but that's for a different forum.)

In the absence of a clear standard, I think East's view is sufficiently wrong that I would not adjust.

* * *

(Hmm -- if I were East and declarer hesitated, I might wonder whether he had mis-sorted his 1=4=0=8 and was now trying to figure out how many tricks he needed to play for!)

[FrancesHinden]

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

Fair point; but two posts would be excessive for one issue....

I was going to do a multiquote but realised I'd run out of room to fit my post on one page.

[ggwhiz]

gordontd, on 2011-July-14, 11:25, said:

We need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent

Sums up my opinion

[CSGibson]

lamford, on 2011-July-14, 09:36, said:

I suggest that you scan through the thread again.

hanoi5, mrdct, nige1, cyberyeti and AlexJonson agree with an adjustment, although the last is only "inclined" to do so. hrothgar, hotshot, gnasher, wank, Free, alphatango, sfi, keledor, CS Gibson, ggwhiz do not, although it should be noted that several of these argue that the defence should have discarded better, misunderstanding the law. A misdefence before the infraction, as gnasher points out, would not deny redress. semeai just asks a question.

That is the whole purpose of the forum, and the opinions of directors are the ones I would most value.

Read through the thread yourself. I neither said an adjustment should or should not be made; I simply indicated that any spade discard should awaken righty to the position.

Since you asked, however, I think that this is a gray area, where you take note of the person hesitating, look to see if they have a history of shenanigans, and make a judgment call. There is no clear right answer, nor even an answer I would be willing to suggest without a full context richer than what you have so far provided.

[hotShot]

Your argument completely depends on the assumption that a hesitation suggests 3-2-0-8 shape.
If that is in fact South shape, than 5♣ are already made. Because there is still a high ♥ at the table and South needs only 1 trick in ♠ which is guaranteed with KQ.

How can East exclude that South holds 2-3-0-8 and is evaluating the chances to drop his 3rd ♥ on ♠?

Your argument is completely ignoring the the possibility that South can go down.

Since West did not play the A♠ why can't South holding 1-2-2-8 evaluate the chances that the ♦ honors are split in a way that East would not want to touch ♦?

[Free]

hotShot, on 2011-July-15, 04:57, said:

How can East exclude that South holds 2-3-0-8 and is evaluating the chances to drop his 3rd ♥ on ♠?

I agree with the rest of your post, but South can't hold a 2=3=0=8 because West showed an odd number of ♠s.

[lamford]

hotShot, on 2011-July-15, 04:57, said:

Since West did not play the A♠ why can't South holding 1-2-2-8 evaluate the chances that the ♦ honors are split in a way that East would not want to touch ♦?

I do not consider, looking at dummy, any chance that East will not switch to a diamond.

[Free]

lamford, on 2011-July-15, 07:09, said:

I do not consider, looking at dummy, any chance that East will not switch to a diamond.

Well, I have to confront you with the facts, East didn't switch to a diamond... So there is a chance.

Btw, something else I've been thinking about: why did South claim after winning the ♠K? He could've played for +1 by playing a small ♠ from dummy, trying to fool East twice.