[FrancesHinden]

cherdano, on Nov 26 2006, 06:58 PM, said:

Echognome, on Nov 26 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

(At least in EBU land, there is case law that whether or not to peter is NOT a bridge reason to think.)

What? In my world, this is obviously a bridge reason to think. If declarer doesn't understand my problem, then that's his fault.
Or was this ruling a try to make it illegal to transmit UI to partner? Transmitting UI isn't illegal, use of UI is...

To clarify:

The case law referred to is when there is a suit laid out something like this:

AQ10x


Jx


Declarer runs the jack of the suit and RHO thinks for a while before playing low. This makes declarer believe that the king is off-side, whereas in fact RHO has four low in the suit. When asked why it took him so long to follow to the club, he says 'oh I was just deciding whether to give count or not'. The case law referred to is that you will get ruled against for deceiving declarer by thinking with no good bridge reason to think.

Similarly declarer leads a (possibly) singleton from hand towards the KJ in dummy and you think for a while before following low. It transpires you don't have the ace, you were 'just deciding whether to give count or not'. Same ruling.

Sure, it is possible to have a hand where deciding whether to peter or not is a genuine bridge reason. But _saying_ you were deciding whether to peter or not in a position where it is clear declarer will be deceived into thinking you have a different problem it not a genuine bridge reason.

[whereagles]

Frances' example is right on target. There are many others where a player has to do the thinking of whether to signal or not BEFORE the situation occurs.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Nov 26 2006, 05:58 PM, said:

Echognome, on Nov 26 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

(At least in EBU land, there is case law that whether or not to peter is NOT a bridge reason to think.)

What? In my world, this is obviously a bridge reason to think. If declarer doesn't understand my problem, then that's his fault.
Or was this ruling a try to make it illegal to transmit UI to partner? Transmitting UI isn't illegal, use of UI is...

Frances said it better than I did. What I meant is that if you have a decision (e.g. finesse/drop or which card to finesse) and the next player stops to think when it is not relevant to THIS trick and MAY DECEIVE you, then don't you think there's a problem?

I think I've only ever called the TD once on it. (and was ruled in my favor)

[1eyedjack]

15 to 14 (at the time of writing).
I don't think I have ever seen a poll so evenly divided.

[kenberg]

Despite commenting, I didn't vote. I'm not sure I have enough information to give an up or down vote, although I am not happy with the prolonged hesitation. There are, from time to time, people that I am unhappy with but about whom I am not prepared to say anything more. That seems to fit here.

[Free]

Imo it depends, but it's an unethical habit and rather not allowed.

IF you have to show partner if the lead is good, it's quite unethical to think at that point instead of when declarer is planning the play. If you can play ♦T or ♦2 quickly, you show your preference of the lead. However, if you think and then play a card, it shows the same preference but with a bit of doubt. Here it's clear that East doesn't know if the lead was good or not, but that doesn't give him the right to give his partner UI. It's a known problem with smith signals that sometimes players have to make an unethical thinking pause.

On the other hand, if you're not playing any smith signals, then what is there to think about? Well ok, you can just think if there's a useful signal somewhere, but it's still fuzzy to find a clear reason to think.

[mikestar]

On the facts cited, the hesitation is not OK Now if declarer had called the dummy's card instantly or after a perfunctory plan (say 5 seconds) then third hand must be given time to plan the defense, including but not limited to the first trick.