[MrAce]

---

This is a hand from a Turkish Bridge club. All players are expert (of course ) Joke aside, they are all decent players.

South is thrown in against 4♥ and his side already took 3 tricks. They need an extra trick to defeat. South knows from the auction that West has Hxx ♠ but does not know which honor. So he tanks long time (confirmed by the players and kibs) and he decides to play J of ♠, covered by Q and North decides to duck immediately. West ends giving a ♠ trick for down one.

EW complains that the long pause by South gave his pd an UI, since no one would tank with JTx and his pd knew to duck the Q. North players say he would duck it anyway, because ducking would not have hurt even if his pd had JTx.

How would you rule and would your decision change due to scoring (IMP vs MP)?

Thanks!

[Cyberyeti]

MP, S could have had J109 for -2 but would not have tanked with that, so I think N gets ruled against unless 4♥ was such an outrageous overbid/wrong strain that nobody else will be in it and -1 is fine.

IMPs is more difficult.

[billw55]

 MrAce, on 2016-June-01, 00:16, said:

North players say he would duck it anyway, because ducking would not have hurt even if his pd had JTx.

I find this persuasive. I don't like the idea of north being barred from the correct play, that guarantees defeating the contract when possible, just because his partner tanked. Playing the king is nullo and hence not an LA for a good player. North showed that he understood the situation with his prompt and correct explanation.

Result stands.

[ggwhiz]

 billw55, on 2016-June-01, 06:18, said:

North showed that he understood the situation with his prompt and correct explanation.

Result stands.

I agree. How about a fast J♠ from JT9 getting covered? Possible UI from both situations that I don't think I can win a ruling on given North's reasoning.

ps. After confirming a full count on the hand, low from JTx could cause -2 against a declarer dumb enough to play the Queen. Against astute declarers, I like to make them prove it.

[WellSpyder]

 billw55, on 2016-June-01, 06:18, said:

North showed that he understood the situation with his prompt and correct explanation.

Of course he understood the situation - but perhaps he only gave it the thought necessary to reach the conclusion he did because of the UI from his partner's hesitation.

Maybe a non-Turkish expert would have returned ♣K rather than ♠J so that he did not need to rely on his partner finding the right play? [EDIT: Perhaps that was a bit uncalled for! Of course West is the concealed hand, and giving a ruff and sluff would be fatal if ♠K and Q were the other way round. In that case J may be required to retain a trick in the suit when West has the ten and North the seven...]

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-June-01, 05:18, said:

MP, S could have had J109 for -2 but would not have tanked with that, so I think N gets ruled against unless 4♥ was such an outrageous overbid/wrong strain that nobody else will be in it and -1 is fine.

IMPs is more difficult.

Ducking is obvious with IMPs. It secures one down if there is any possibility at all to set the contract (South has JTx or J9x) and only gives away a second undertrick if South has led from JT9.

It is more difficult with MP. Shall North go for the second undertrick (in case South had Jt9) or be satisfied with a secured one down?

At IMP the difference is marginal, at MP it can be crucial.

[gordontd]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-June-01, 07:53, said:

Of course he understood the situation - but perhaps he only gave it the thought necessary to reach the conclusion he did because of the UI from his partner's hesitation.

I think that's the crux of it. The problem with polling something like this is that the players would be woken up to the significance of the position, probably to the same extent as was the player in question by the tempo break, by virtue of being asked.

[MrAce]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-June-01, 07:53, said:

Of course he understood the situation - but perhaps he only gave it the thought necessary to reach the conclusion he did because of the UI from his partner's hesitation.

Maybe a non-Turkish expert would have returned ♣K rather than ♠J so that he did not need to rely on his partner finding the right play? [EDIT: Perhaps that was a bit uncalled for! Of course West is the concealed hand, and giving a ruff and sluff would be fatal if ♠K and Q were the other way round. In that case J may be required to retain a trick in the suit when West has the ten and North the seven...]

Yes it was uncalled for. Because I mentioned in OP that South does not know which honor West holds.

And you are also wrong that pd needs to hold the 7. Who holds the 7 is irrelevant unless partner auto covers the Q.

I know it is easy to not cover the Q auto in forums when asked as a question. I also know it is easy to find the J lead when asked as a question. These people at least managed it at the table. Do I think my hesitation wakes partner? Probably. Was it intentional hesitation? No imho. Analyzing between to play the 9 or J takes some time unless you experienced this position before. Should this excuse rescue us? I do not know and that's why I am asking here.

[johnu]

South managed to figure out a very effective switch to ♠J Playing the ♠K only gains a trick if the lead was J109. If North is the caliber of player that South apparently is, finding the spade duck appears to be a foregone conclusion. The question is how bad would a player sitting North have to be to make an adjustment?

[WellSpyder]

 MrAce, on 2016-June-01, 10:13, said:

Yes it was uncalled for. Because I mentioned in OP that South does not know which honor West holds.

And you are also wrong that pd needs to hold the 7. Who holds the 7 is irrelevant unless partner auto covers the Q.

I know it is easy to not cover the Q auto in forums when asked as a question. I also know it is easy to find the J lead when asked as a question. These people at least managed it at the table. Do I think my hesitation wakes partner? Probably. Was it intentional hesitation? No imho. Analyzing between to play the 9 or J takes some time unless you experienced this position before. Should this excuse rescue us? I do not know and that's why I am asking here.

Sorry, Mr Ace. I did try to make clear in my edit that J looked like a good card to play.

I don't think anyone would be likely to think that the hesitation was a deliberate attempt to show partner that it wasn't from J10x or J109, but that isn't really relevant to the issue of whether UI affected the outcome. I think johnu is right that if North is of a similar calibre to South then he is likely to find the right play here without any potential help from UI.

One other issue that hasn't been mentioned is that we don't know the earlier play on the hand. Was there an opportunity for South to switch to spades earlier in the hand with a more attractive holding like J109?

[MrAce]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-June-02, 02:42, said:

Sorry, Mr Ace. I did try to make clear in my edit that J looked like a good card to play.

It is all good. Thank you though

 WellSpyder, on 2016-June-02, 02:42, said:

One other issue that hasn't been mentioned is that we don't know the earlier play on the hand. Was there an opportunity for South to switch to spades earlier in the hand with a more attractive holding like J109?

No, there was no opportunity previously.

[robert2734]

If north had ♠ Q653 than the jack is the only card that sets the contract. Since north has ♠ K653 than the jack is the only card that does not instantly beat the contract and then only if north covers to try to beat it two. Interesting.

[Cyberyeti]

 robert2734, on 2016-June-02, 17:50, said:

If north had ♠ Q653 than the jack is the only card that sets the contract. Since north has ♠ K653 than the jack is the only card that does not instantly beat the contract and then only if north covers to try to beat it two. Interesting.

Providing N withholds the K, any card beats it, it's just slightly more obvious not to cover when it goes 9-10 or small-7 but in abstract the situation is the same as when it goes J-Q.