BBO Discussion Forums: Is this a suitable case for a weighted ruling? - BBO Discussion Forums

 VixTD, on 2014-July-11, 07:14, said:

I was dummy on this hand, so I can't be sure what South was going to play, but would be reasonably confident in my assessment that neither was he (and that that is what he would say if asked by the TD). I would also be reasonably confident that he was indeed hoping to learn something from East's tempo (and that that is why he couldn't yet say what his plan was) - East was very far from a beginner, but also not an expert. A typical club player of several decades' standing, perhaps.

But I don't understand your suggestion that a declarer hoping to learn something from East's inability to underplay the queen without a hitch might decide to run the ten if East had played low smoothly. Isn't that completely contradictory?

 VixTD, on 2014-July-11, 07:14, said:

Then I suggest you should not continue to think about it, or you will wrongly be awarding declarer something like 33% of 6♣=. At the point at which declarer would have had the critical guess, he would have known that West had 11 vacant places for the queen of clubs, and East 12, which narrowly suggests playing for the drop. However, to make the contract, he needs East to have the king of hearts, so there are exactly 11 vacant places for each player. He would be wrong to change the vacant places calculation for the lead of the ace of diamonds, as East also produced a diamond, and the distribution of the diamond suit is not known. So, declarer is choosing between two lines that are theoretically equal - playing West for Qxx or xx in clubs. Given that a player will surely try to cash an ace slightly more often when looking at a potential trump trick, I think that running the jack on the second round is marginally correct, so your assessment of the above figures is way out. The more I think about it, the more I think that giving declarer as little as 50 or 60% of 6♣= is overgenerous to the offenders, and I now think 75% of 6♣= is about right. And maybe pran is right for all the wrong reasons!

 WellSpyder, on 2014-July-14, 03:13, said:

I was aware of a possible contradiction here when I wrote this, but I'm not sure it is completely contradictory. He might not have decided what to do if East fumbled a little over the ♣10. After all, not all fumbles are equal. Leading the ♣10 at least leaves all options open.

I played this hand recently in a Dawes match (teams-of-eight):

I was in 6♠ as West, on a club lead. I could either take the heart finesse or play for a red-suit squeeze for the overtrick. The finesse has slightly better odds, but I wanted to leave both options open. I drew trumps and led ♥Q. When North fumbled perceptibly I stuck with my idea of running the queen, and lost a trick. It was an action that could have been a brief pause for thought, or also just an attempt to extract a sticky card. It wasn't enough to make a fuss about. Had he played low smoothly, I still don't know what I would have done.

Another player in our county third team overbid to 7NT and took the same line of play. North played low in tempo and the squeeze worked. I might not have been so sanguine had I been in a grand slam.

 lamford, on 2014-July-14, 06:13, said:

Actually, about 30% of 6♣= was the proportion I had in mind, but that's not the main point of my argument. I have said clearly that Sven (and therefore you, by the reasoning you give above) would be correct to award all or most of 6♣= if you think that declarer is likely to have made the contract all or most of the time had East played low in tempo. I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

I'm not the only one who thinks that he is unlikely to make his contact if East doesn't hesitate, but I'm quite prepared to be persuaded otherwise. That's why directors consult other players.

Do you not think it's a valid counter-argument that a player on lead to a slam with an ace and Qx(x) in trumps might refrain from leading the ace in order not to give declarer a clue as to how to play the trump suit? (Particularly if the ace is unlikely to go away.)

I don't agree with the implication that, for the class of player we seem to be talking about, a hesitation is more likely with the queen than without it. Even if perfectly ethical, this sort of player is better prepared to play a low club when he's got the queen than when he hasn't.

That being the case, running the ten after the hesitation is an anti-percentage action which gains in expectation only if the director will come to declarer's aid when he's wrong. And I don't think it's the director's job to improve the score players get from taking anti-percentage actions.

Another question: suppose a defender in this position, having hesitated, says that he wasn't thinking about this trick and follows small. Declarer rises with the ace and finesses on the way back, losing to the doubleton queen. Should you adjust under Law 73F?

 Aardv, on 2014-July-14, 09:06, said:

Really? And has less of a choice to make when he has three cards than when he has one?

 Aardv, on 2014-July-14, 09:06, said:

My general principle is that if a player after hesitating apparently wakes up and immediately excuses "he had nothing to think about" then the hesitation should be considered unintentional so that Law 73D1 applies: Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 VixTD, on 2014-July-14, 08:07, said:

It is indeed quite possible that a player might think that leading the ace might give the game away. Game theory therefore indicates that he should lead an ace half the time with Qxx in trumps and half the time with xx in trumps, except that with the latter he would not know that his partner might have Qx in trumps. In the example in question, declarer has very little to go on, but having started the suit by leading the ten, he would be a slight favourite to get the suit right without the hitch. My experience of ATxx opposite KJ9x(x) is that a good declarer gets this suit right far more than half the time. Sometimes the opponent hitches because he does not know whether the layout is ATxx opposite J8xx when failing to cover the jack is a disaster, and this makes the slightly worse line with this suit combination best. The declarer must be allowed to discern the layout from the opposing tempo more than half the time, as otherwise it is a licence to cheat for the opponents. Your 30% is not in the ball-park given that declarer is exactly 50% against God and God who defend in perfect tempo, because the need to place the king of hearts with East has made the odds 11/22 v 11/22. If he had started the suit by leading the jack, then I would not given him very much of the contract if West hitched with a small singleton, as the damage was negligible as he was never getting the suit right. I have surveyed a couple of very strong players and they both get the suit right when
a) the ace is led, and
b) both player play low in tempo in trumps
although I had no auction to give them

And I don't think declarer would have made the contract all or most of the time, unless the latter means "more than half the time". I started at 50% and have moved to around 75% after reconsidering my inept initial analysis.

 paulg, on 2014-July-09, 07:12, said:

Did you think about the fact that to make the contract you needed East to have the king of hearts? Did you consider the fact that the opening lead has suggested that West does not have QJ9, QJT, JT9 or JT8 in spades?

 gordontd, on 2014-July-14, 09:18, said:

"A typical club player of several decades' standing" is not thinking about which club to play in this position, whatever his holding.

 pran, on 2014-July-14, 12:32, said:

That's convenient, but it's not what 73D1 says. "...players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is
made is not in itself an infraction." If hesitating with Qx then saying you had nothing to think about might work to your benefit, then the "otherwise" clause does not apply.

 pran, on 2014-July-14, 12:32, said:

 Aardv, on 2014-July-16, 05:28, said:

Consider a hypothetical, but quite possible situation: A player has simply fallen asleep (genuinly) and some 15 seconds after it becomes his turn to play suddenly wakes up and plays. Do you really use Law 73D2/F on him?

Now, instead of falling asleep he (for whatever reason, he may for instance have a mental defect) is simply absent-minded and similarly "wakes up" after 15 Seconds. Do you use Law 73D2/F on him?

I seriously believe that we should be very careful with Law 73D2/F when there is every reason to trust that the hesitation was unintended.

If a player falls asleep, then there are two possibilities:

• Everyone sees that he is sleeping and it is clear that he isn't thinking, so no need to do anything.
  
• It is not clear that he fell asleep and then the hesitation can work to the sleeper's benefit. Falling asleep is not "being particularly careful" and we may well rule against the sleeper if we think that his power nap misled an opponent.

Rik

If the game of bridge is such that players, particularly in these days of an aging demographic, can't make little mistakes like falling asleep or losing concentration, without having "could have known" thrown at them, then those players will quit playing. Is that what we want?

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 09:02, said:

I think it - you said it !

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 09:02, said:

Sorry, I got distracted. What was the question?

Cute, BarMar.

Seriously, though, as I've said earlier today, it's a matter of education. Repeated, regular, "expected" education. And we don't do that.

 lamford, on 2014-July-14, 17:20, said:

Take care when pronouncing on game theory.

Say I lead the ace 100% of the time, regardless of my trump holding. If declarer plays me for the trump queen I therefore win half the time - the same as your GTO strategy. The same applies if I never lead the ace.

But the truth is you should not use game theory against someone you can out-think. Most GTO strategies are a stand-off, so there is little point trying to use them. Against someone from the "they must have the queen" school, just lead passively when you have the trump queen and bang down the ace when you don't. Yes, that means I lose 100% of the time if declarer reads my strategy, but we should strive to beat GTO - not to achieve parity.

Besides, by trying to achieve GTO, we lose on hands where it was simply right lead an ace, and in truth, I am from the "your auction sucks, so I am banging down an ace" school.

 helene_t, on 2014-July-09, 05:48, said:

It would be nice if the Law allowed us to do this, but I don't think it does. Law 12C1C states that "In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results". It's not consistent to use different probabilities when assigning the N/S and E/W scores.

 pran, on 2014-July-09, 07:52, said:

Whilst Law 12C1f does say that, it is just an observation. Law 12C1f does not tell us how to assign the score; see higher up in Law 12C1 for that.

 lamford, on 2014-July-14, 06:13, said:

I disagree. ♦A is not in the same category as the subset of small diamonds. If West always leads an ace when he has one, then this card takes up one of West's vacants places, just as (as you correctly point out) ♥K inferentially takes up one of East's. There may also be inferences from the aucion (even if E/W passed throughout).

However, the reasoning you or I might have applied in this situation is not necessarily relevant. What the TD has to try to judge (and it is not easy) is what line of reasoning the declarer at the table would/might have taken. Often this sort of case is easier to rule in ACBL-land: then the TD only has to decide whether it is (i) at all probable; and/or (ii) likely that declarer would have found ♣Q had the irregularity not occurred.

 blackshoe, on 2014-July-16, 09:02, said:

It's not what I want.

I want the law and its interpretation to achieve two things:

1) If I can give a defender a genuine problem when he's got some honour holding, I should be able to interpret his hesitation without having to consider the possibility that he's hesitated deceptively with no honour in the suit.

2) Otherwise, daydreaming defenders should not be penalized by the laws for their inattention.

The interpretation popular on this thread seems to do neither of these things. If the magic formula "I wasn't thinking about this trick" automatically avoids penalty under 73F, then a player who has considered whether to cover a J with Qxx can use it to conceal his holding, and to make that work he can hesitate then use the formula sometimes with xx also. On the other hand, you want to penalize a player for forgetting or not knowing the magic words after he's hesitated in a position where he can't possibly have a problem whatever his holding.