[jillybean]

Declarer playing in a 3C contract.

LHO led a small spade to partners Ace, (singleton). Later, when LHO got back in he led the spade Q, declarer played low from dummy, rho discarded, declarer played low in error.
Declarer turned trick to indicate the trick was won, thinking he had played K.

LHO pointed out the trick should be turned the other way. RHO questioned what had happened and LHO showed he won trick with Q. Cards were placed in correct position, LHO now asks
“No spades partner?” RHO looks perplexed and answers “No I don't have any”, LHO says “it's ok, Bob made a mistake” and then led a small spade for RHO to ruff.

Declarer objects to LHO's comment. Director is called, how do you rule?

[Bbradley62]

"Everyone play and shut up."

[fromageGB]

LHO's question seems perfectly in order. Warn declarer not to waste my time.

[Cyberyeti]

fromageGB, on 2015-December-11, 05:08, said:

LHO's question seems perfectly in order. Warn declarer not to waste my time.

The question is fine, it's the remark after that is not (LHO says “it's ok, Bob made a mistake”) giving UI that declarer has the K not him. Admittedly this is pretty clear from the AI as well so I don't see any possible penalty from that.

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-December-11, 06:08, said:

The question is fine, it's the remark after that is not (LHO says “it's ok, Bob made a mistake”) giving UI that declarer has the K not him. Admittedly this is pretty clear from the AI as well so I don't see any possible penalty from that.

Law 61B states that defenders are allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke, but at the risk of creating unauthorized information, and I think that even without the subsequent comment LHO's question conveys surprise that somebody has shown out, and RHO may be able to work out that the surprise comes from the failure of declarer to win the trick with the king, thus placing that card with declarer. You may argue that LHO wouldn't lead the queen if they also had the king, and most of the time I'm sure that's true (assuming they play standard carding), but is it always true?

I'd let them play on after warning them of the constraints of unauthorized information.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2015-December-10, 19:57, said:

LHO says “it's ok, Bob made a mistake” and then led a small spade for RHO to ruff.

Declarer objects to LHO's comment. Director is called, how do you rule?

Does he prefer Robert?

[Cyberyeti]

VixTD, on 2015-December-11, 07:37, said:

Law 61B states that defenders are allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke, but at the risk of creating unauthorized information, and I think that even without the subsequent comment LHO's question conveys surprise that somebody has shown out, and RHO may be able to work out that the surprise comes from the failure of declarer to win the trick with the king, thus placing that card with declarer. You may argue that LHO wouldn't lead the queen if they also had the king, and most of the time I'm sure that's true (assuming they play standard carding), but is it always true?

I'd let them play on after warning them of the constraints of unauthorized information.

You play the Q from KQ in this situation if you want partner to ruff if able, but aren't sure if they can.

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-December-11, 06:08, said:

The question is fine, it's the remark after that is not (LHO says "it's ok, Bob made a mistake") giving UI that declarer has the K not him. Admittedly this is pretty clear from the AI as well so I don't see any possible penalty from that.

The facts suggest that RHO may not have realized the location of the king: if he had, he might have ruffed rather than discard. Also declarer's failure to play it may reinforce in RHO's mind that declarer does not have it. Furthermore, RHO's mannerism as described suggests he was not alert to the situation.

I can definitely see the argument that there is UI here.

[jillybean]

My response was the delayed question "no spades partner?!" which was made well after partner discarded and the subsequent comment "Bob made a mistake" clearly suggested to partner that declarer had the King and failed to play it.
If partner had any doubt of the location of the King, these comments create a clear picture of the Kings location.

I would expect LHO to receive a warning that his comments were an infraction and to avoid such remarks in future, others think nothing is amiss.

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-December-11, 00:19, said:

"Everyone play and shut up."

jillybean, on 2015-December-11, 09:35, said:

I would expect LHO to receive a warning that his comments were an infraction and to avoid such remarks in future, others think nothing is amiss.

Oh, something was amiss, all right. Bbradley62 just had a more direct way of issuing the warning at the table.

I find that my warnings about stuff like this are much better received when presented one-on-one later.

[billw55]

The warning is obvious. The question is whether or not to adjust the score, assuming that RHO does indeed ruff the third spade. I am inclined to do so, after checking full hand and table result for damage.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2015-December-11, 09:50, said:

The warning is obvious. The question is whether or not to adjust the score, assuming that RHO does indeed ruff the third spade. I am inclined to do so, after checking full hand and table result for damage.

No adjustment would be conceivable if big-mouth proceeds with a low third spade forcing RHO to ruff. The comment caused no damage; declarer BTW has damaged himself via not paying attention to the game by winning the Spade King. He won't be getting a Law 74 warning, though.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2015-December-11, 10:22, said:

No adjustment would be conceivable if big-mouth proceeds with a low third spade forcing RHO to ruff. The comment caused no damage; declarer BTW has damaged himself via not paying attention to the game by winning the Spade King. He won't be getting a Law 74 warning, though.

Hmmm ... yes I see. Although he didn't ruff the previous one. The OP did not seem 100% clear to me that RHO actually ruffed, but probably so. Again, the full hand and actual result would be needed to be certain.

[aguahombre]

It is not easy to construct an actual hand with all the elements in the OP. Opening leader must have five spades to the QJ, lest the contract would be spades. But there are many reasons for OL's partner not to ruff the spade queen -- maybe not wanting to waste a natural trump trick while declarer pitches a baby spade instead of allowing OL's Jack to be established.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2015-December-11, 09:35, said:

My response was the delayed question "no spades partner?!" which was made well after partner discarded and the subsequent comment "Bob made a mistake" clearly suggested to partner that declarer had the King and failed to play it.

I agree about the "mistake" comment, but I don't think the delayed "no spades?" question is an infraction. Surprisingly, Law 61B doesn't specify any time limit on when a player can inquire about a possible revoke.

However, I generally consider a significant amount of UI to be transmitted if a defender doesn't ask about revokes consistently. If they always ask the first time their partner fails to follow to a particular suit, there's effectively no UI (it just shows that partner is paying attention to the play, which he's required to do). If they only do it when they're surprised, it can give away quite a bit about their hand (usually suggesting that they're not very long in the suit, so they're surprised at how many declarer has).

But as with most bridge issues, there are no absolutes. Last week the entire table was very surprised when my partner showed out on the first heart trick; not because of their holdings, but because he'd opened 1NT!

[jillybean]

billw55, on 2015-December-11, 10:27, said:

Hmmm ... yes I see. Although he didn't ruff the previous one. The OP did not seem 100% clear to me that RHO actually ruffed, but probably so. Again, the full hand and actual result would be needed to be certain.

Yes, RHO ruffed the 3rd spade.

I do not expect an adjustment here, declarer had a brain slip. I would expect the director to warn LHO that his not so covert comment suggesting declarer did not take his King was inappropriate and perhaps even take a look at the board and result.