[nige1]

3NT= Major pre-empt. (wants partner to play the hand but does not show extra strength).
4♥ = Pass or correct
5♣ and 5♥ = Cue-bids
A round-robin all-play-all pairs competition in Scotland, scored by cross-imps. All excellent players.
North led the ♥K. Declarer paused for about 15 seconds and then played low from dummy. South followed immediately with the ♥T, reverse count. Declarer paused again before playing the ♥A (Defenders say 15+ seconds. Declarer says 5 seconds).
After drawing trumps, declarer led a ♣ towards dummy. North played the ♣A and attempted to cash a ♥, "Knowing" that declarer had two more ♥s since partner's ♥T must be a singleton. Dummy's ♣s provided a parking space for declarer's ♦s. The contract made and the director was called.
Defenders said that if North ducks smoothly when ♣s are led from West, declarer has to guess whether to play the ♣T or the ♣Q on the second round.
Declarer said he is entitled to think at trick one and he would always guess ♣ right after the opening 3NT.
How would you rule?

• Result stands?
• Can a weighted ruling of (say) 50% of 6♠= (-980 for NS) 50% of 4♠+2 =(-480 for NS) be legal?
• Suppose that, after consultation, the director assays a weighted ruling of (say) 50% of 6♠=(-980 for NS) and 50% of 6♠-1 (+50 for NS).
  

How should you translate the latter ruling to X-imps? Assume, for the sake of argument, that the score at all other tables was 4♠+2 (-480 for NS).

---

This post has been edited by nige1: 2012-November-28, 02:52

[blackshoe]

Declarer is correct, he is allowed to think at trick one, before he plays from dummy. He's not entitled to spend some time thinking before he plays from dummy and again before he plays from hand. As to he "would always guess ♣ right after the opening 3NT", I don't buy it. Further, I don't see any reason for his hesitation before playing from his hand at trick one.

I think EW are entitled to get to 6♠ in the bidding, so I don't think a weighting including 4♠ is legal. Some of 6♠ and some of 6♠-1, maybe 40/60 giving the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. As to cross-IMPing, I think you'd cross-IMP the weighted score (+940 for EW), but I'm no expert on that form of scoring.

[pran]

Blackshoe is right, Declarer's hesitation before playing his singleton Ace is such a deliberate, premeditated and serious violation of Law 73D2 that I shall deny him the favour of a weighted score here (unless the other directors with whom I consult unanimously disagree and think that I am too strict).

[RMB1]

nige1, on 2012-November-27, 20:50, said:

• ...
• Suppose that, after consultation, the director assays a weighted ruling of (say) 50% of 6♠=(-980 for NS) and 50% of 6♠-1 (+50 for NS).
  

How should you translate the latter ruling to X-imps? Assume, for the sake of argument, that the score at all other tables was 4♠+2 (-480 for NS).

Two comparisons are flat.
The two comparisons involving the assigned score are the same.

XIMP = 2 *( 0.5 * IMPs(480-980) + 0.5 * IMPs(480+50)) = IMPs(-500) + IMPs(530) = -11 + 11 = 0

[paulg]

Five seconds is a really long time at the table and, if declarer admitted to this, then he is toast. I'm sure all the real TDs (i.e., not me) have noticed how well players declare when knowing the hands and how relatively poorly they do when they don't.

I'd be as harsh as they'll let pran be.

[nige1]

Sorrry, It was a pairs not teams competiton (corrected above)

[phil_20686]

I was the declarer on this board.

Some further information: West and South were screen mates, north and east were screen mates

(1) N/S were not asked to agree a hesitation, had they been asked, they would not have. North called the director, started to explain, and then changed his mind and sent the director away. Then later changed his mind again and asked for a ruling, and received one without E/W being asked for their version.
(2) South has a condition that means that he always plays his cards quite slowly, and added to this the defender had a (brief) think, so there was a reasonable pause between when dummy played and when the defender followed. Declarer's version of events is that he had already detached the Ace from his hand, and was waiting for defender to follow. I admitted that I let my attention wander, but I played as soon as I noticed that the defender has followed, the pause would have been "at most two seconds".
(3) There is no guess. Playing to the K then the Q picks up Axxx onside and Axx onside, playing to the K then the ten picks up only Jxx onside.
(4) Declarer did not say anything at the table, before or after the director was called, except to point out that norths analysis of having a "guess" was erroneous.

[Trinidad]

I don't know what West knew about the meaning of the 3NT opening bid. But I do know one thing for sure: If I would be sitting West, with the information that is described in the OP, I would always play South for the ♣A. From the play at trick one, North is known to have 7 (or 9) hearts to the KQJ. With the ♣A, many North players would have opened 1♥.

To put it differently, there are four unknown picture cards: ♦KQ and ♣AJ. North can have at most 4 HCPs. He can have:
1) ♣A => play to the king
2) ♣J => play to the ten
3) ♣J + ♦Q => play to the ten
4) ♣J + ♦K => play to the ten

He cannot have:
5) ♣A + ♦Q => 12 HCPs opens 1♥
6) ♣A + ♦K => 13 HCPs opens 1♥

(Cases where North has neither ♣A nor ♣J are irrelevant)

The cases 1)-4) are certainly not equal probability. I would say that the probability for 1 is lower than for 2 (since some players would open 1♥ with 10 HCPs and a 7 card suit). 3) and 4) are equal and much smaller than 1) or 2). Nevertheless, even if 1) and 2) are equal and even if 3) and 4) are very very small, it is still better to finesse against the jack. This is a clear percentage argument why you should play North for the jack. You cannot make a similar percentage argument to play North for the ace.

In a good field, I would expect most of the West players to play North for the jack, if North ducks the club smoothly. So a weighted AS will be based on how obvious it is for North to duck smoothly. I could give North the benefit of the doubt there and rule 100% 6♠-1.

I do, however, have a little problem with North's argument. Say that West indeed held ♥A97. Then why would he think about ducking the first trick (when missing the ♣A)? If he has a club, there is no way he can discard it on a suit in dummy, so his only hope would be to take the ♥A confidently, pull the trumps, and either discard dummy's heart on good diamonds or discard his own hearts on dummy's clubs, hoping against hopes that North doesn't cash the ♥Q. So, West cannot have anything to think whether he has the singleton ♥A, or ♥A97. That becomes very clear at trick 4, when North sees that West doesn't have a club void.

So, West's pause shouldn't have misled North. But I am not a fan of arguments that a NOS should have been able to figure it out anyway. Particularly in this case, where all becomes clear at trick 4... exactly the point where North is supposed to come up with a smooth duck. So, I sympathize with North and rule 6♠-1, no weighted AS.

Rik

[Trinidad]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-28, 03:08, said:

(3) There is no guess. Playing to the K then the Q picks up Axxx onside and Axx onside, playing to the K then the ten picks up only Jxx onside.

That would be true if there wouldn't be any additional information. But North had preempted and shown up with 6 HCPs already (vs South's 2). Is it that common in Scotland to preempt with 10 or more HCPs? You mean that nobody would open the North hand 1♥?

I would say that playing to the K and Q picks up:
♣Axxx + ♦x with North and every other picture card with South (4 club positions x 5 diamond positions = 20 distributions)
♣Axx + ♦xx with North and every other picture card with South (6x10= 60 distributions)

Playing to the ten picks up:
♣Jxx + ♦xx with North (6x10= 60 distributions)
♣Jxx + ♦Qx with North (6x5= 30 distributions)
♣Jxx + ♦Kx with North (6x5= 30 distributions)

Total possible relevant distributions: 80+120=200. Playing to the 10 wins in 120/200=60%. Playing to the K and Q wins 40%.

Disclaimer: My math is usually incorrect.

Maybe the situation is not as clear as I wrote in my previous post, but I would say that there is at least some thinking to do. Saying that there is no guess, and that playing North for the ♣A is the only correct play seems to be an overstatement.

Rik

[phil_20686]

Btw rik, the point of this system is that responder can declare by bidding 4c and asking for a transfer, so there is no way he would risk exposing an unsupported king of diamonds to the lead in 4S, given that KQ diamonds would be an auto lead there is a reasonably strong probability that opener has the diamond K. With three hearts and kqxx diamonds and the club ace it would be criminal not to bid five diamonds. So everything points to north having the club ace.

Also you can pick up axxx-jx but not jxxx ax, so you make more often when the ace is onside.

[paulg]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-28, 03:08, said:

(2) South has a condition that means that he always plays his cards quite slowly, and added to this the defender had a (brief) think, so there was a reasonable pause between when dummy played and when the defender followed. Declarer's version of events is that he had already detached the Ace from his hand, and was waiting for defender to follow. I admitted that I let my attention wander, but I played as soon as I noticed that the defender has followed, the pause would have been "at most two seconds".

Notwithstanding the apparently poor performance of the TD, my view is that this would meet the "could have known" criteria particularly when North cannot see your behaviour, only your played card. I understand that there are mitigating circumstances, but you have to be particularly careful in this type of situation.

In terms of the ruling, I understand your view but I'm not convinced that opener will have a 7-4 hand very often (as he will open 4M with some of them) and so you would have to guess correctly. I'd probably go with 60/40 or 70/30 in your favour.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2012-November-28, 02:09, said:

Five seconds is a really long time at the table and, if declarer admitted to this, then he is toast. I'm sure all the real TDs (i.e., not me) have noticed how well players declare when knowing the hands and how relatively poorly they do when they don't.

I'd be as harsh as they'll let pran be.

I agree with much of this, but you must only adjust for the actual damage which is the percentage of time 6S would go off without the infraction. My estimate is that declarer would make the contract most of the time (North still had a guess if declarer had won the ace of hearts smoothly) and 50% of 6S-1 seems correctly to favour the non-offenders. A PP for West might also be in order.

[c_corgi]

Obviously the slow Ace suggests a non-singleton, but with the alternative holding of A97 hearts to go with his club loser declarer would hardly consider ducking either, so declarer being distracted seems like the likely reason. Is this a relevant consideration here, or is "slow = not singleton" sufficiently powerful to override it?

[mink]

Quote

Law 73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, 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. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

If a TD considers whether something has happened that possibly requires to adjust a score, he must assume this falls under point 2 above, as if it was within 1 opps act at their own risk. In point 2, however, the words "attempt" and "purposeful" occur. That means that the first fact the TD should establish is if there was indeed a pause and if declarer intentionally took some time before playing his ♥A. Nothing of that is mentioned in the OP, so I believe phil_20686 that the break was short and unintentional --> no infraction.

Even if it was an infraction, North could know that any thinking by declarer cannot be about what to play now, because ducking trick 1 would be suicide. West knows this and North knows this too, holding ♣A. Therefore North should not be mislead by the pause.

Even if somebody thinks he might be mislead, declarer will make most of the time. No matter how unlikely it is for North to hold the ♣A, it cannot hurt to play to the K in trick 4. He returns to the hand in trump an plays his last ♣. Now North knows that South has an odd number of ♣ cards. So if he ducks again, he gives up the trick with ♣A and must rely on declarer getting it wrong. So he will rather win now and hope for another ♥trick. Even if he ducks again, declarer may well play the Q.

Karl

[paulg]

mink, on 2012-November-28, 09:34, said:

If a TD considers whether something has happened that possibly requires to adjust a score, he must assume this falls under point 2 above, as if it was within 1 opps act at their own risk. In point 2, however, the words "attempt" and "purposeful" occur. That means that the first fact the TD should establish is if there was indeed a pause and if declarer intentionally took some time before playing his ♥A. Nothing of that is mentioned in the OP, so I believe phil_20686 that the break was short and unintentional --> no infraction.

However, there is also Law 73F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-28, 03:08, said:

(2) South has a condition that means that he always plays his cards quite slowly

The medical condition changes things. Were the opponents aware of it?

[phil_20686]

I think an issue that hasn't been touched upon here, but is interesting with screens, is that of the "natural tempo".

Once one person has paused to think, its quite normal to, say, have a drink of water, put your cards down, stretch, look at the clock, examine the opps carding section on their CC, etc, all of which means that a slight pause is probably part of normal tempo.

A similar thing happens with, say, kj guesses. If declarer thinks for a long time before playing, lho's normal tempo should be slower than if declarer had played immediately.

Drawing conclusions from slight pauses from someone who is not your screen mate seems fraught with difficulty.

[pran]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-28, 13:11, said:

I think an issue that hasn't been touched upon here, but is interesting with screens, is that of the "natural tempo".

Once one person has paused to think, its quite normal to, say, have a drink of water, put your cards down, stretch, look at the clock, examine the opps carding section on their CC, etc, all of which means that a slight pause is probably part of normal tempo.

A similar thing happens with, say, kj guesses. If declarer thinks for a long time before playing, lho's normal tempo should be slower than if declarer had played immediately.

Drawing conclusions from slight pauses from someone who is not your screen mate seems fraught with difficulty.

Players are not isolated by the screen during play so the timing for each player is available to all the other players at the table

[c_corgi]

phil_20686, on 2012-November-28, 03:08, said:

(2) South has a condition that means that he always plays his cards quite slowly, and added to this the defender had a (brief) think...

So North had UI that his partner didn't have the singleton? Perhaps he was constrained to defend as he did.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-28, 13:00, said:

The medical condition changes things. Were the opponents aware of it?

Yes.