[lamford]

---

SB, South, partnering MM, had a quick auction to the reasonable slam in the Santa Claus pairs at the North London Club. RR, West, led the ten of spades and declarer, considered the hand for ten or fifteen seconds, and won, drew trumps, RR pitching a diamond, and led the six of hearts. RR thought for a while and was unsure whether this was a Smith Peter or count situation. He did not particularly like his opening lead, so he was inclined to play low, but after a while he recalled that his partner ChCh had told him not to play Smith Peters, and he emerged, after about ten seconds, with the nine of hearts, normal count. He thought it was important to give count so that his partner would know whether a second one was cashing if declarer played the king and ChCh did have the ace.

SB decided to go up with the king, and when it lost, and the rounded suit squeeze failed, he was one down.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", called SB indignantly, "RR, who is normally very ethical, hesitated for quite some time in a tempo-sensitive situation. If he had not, I would have played the jack on the basis that if RR had the ace he might have played it."

OO arrived. ChCh was first to speak. "RR had a demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT," he began. "And even if you rule he didn't then you would only restore equity, and as you had a guess, you would only make 6♠ 50% of the time. I offer 55% as it is Christmas."

SB was furious. "That is rubbish, and you know it, ChCh," he responded. "If a hapless idiot such as RR plays low in tempo, he won't have the ace. This is a guess I would get right all the time, as the jack is the normal play, as some of the time West will play the ace if he has it."

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

I sentence SB to six months of anger management classes.

[nige1]

Lamford 'SB, South, partnering MM, had a quick auction to the reasonable slam in the Santa Claus pairs at the North London Club. RR, West, led the ten of spades and declarer, considered the hand for ten or fifteen seconds, and won, drew trumps, RR pitching a diamond, and led the six of hearts. RR thought for a while and was unsure whether this was a Smith Peter or count situation. He did not particularly like his opening lead, so he was inclined to play low, but after a while he recalled that his partner ChCh had told him not to play Smith Peters, and he emerged, after about ten seconds, with the nine of hearts, normal count. He thought it was important to give count so that his partner would know whether a second one was cashing if declarer played the king and ChCh did have the ace.
SB decided to go up with the king, and when it lost, and the rounded suit squeeze failed, he was one down.
"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", called SB indignantly, "RR, who is normally very ethical, hesitated for quite some time in a tempo-sensitive situation. If he had not, I would have played the jack on the basis that if RR had the ace he might have played it."
OO arrived. ChCh was first to speak. "RR had a demonstrable bridge reason for the BIT," he began. "And even if you rule he didn't then you would only restore equity, and as you had a guess, you would only make 6♠ 50% of the time. I offer 55% as it is Christmas."
SB was furious. "That is rubbish, and you know it, ChCh," he responded. "If a hapless idiot such as RR plays low in tempo, he won't have the ace. This is a guess I would get right all the time, as the jack is the normal play, as some of the time West will play the ace if he has it." How do you rule?
++++++++++++++++++++++
IMO Common-sense and precedent should persuade the director to rule in favour of SB but ChCh raises an intriguing point about equity. So-called Equity principles (restoring the status quo -- often by means of weighted scores) are enshrined in the Introduction and cast a murky pall over the rest of the Laws of Bridge. In fact, IMO they add no value and should be scrapped. Anyway, I hope they're irrelevant to this ruling.

---

[sanst]

RR should have thought about that during the first trick, or better, should have thought about what to do if hearts were played by the declarer. He hasn’t much more to consider with this hand. I would decide in favour of SB and MM. Anyway, RR didn’t have at that particular moment a bridge reason to think. His reason to think was his failing memory.

[barmar]

Smith Peters in suit contracts? And even if you do play them, how could it possibly apply when the lead was a trump and declarer has drawn them all?

But I'm with sanst. Even a hapless idiot should see the heart tenace and plan what they'll do if declarer leads the suit.

I think the "any doubtful points should be ruled in favor of the non-offender" principle trumps the equity principle here.

[pescetom]

I greatly enjoy these posts but sometimes find it difficult to remember who is sitting where - would much appreciate it if another time you could put the names directly in the diagram as below:

---

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-December-26, 06:16, said:

I greatly enjoy these posts but sometimes find it difficult to remember who is sitting where - would much appreciate it if another time you could put the names directly in the diagram as below:

I sometimes edit Lamford's post to add the names, I just didn't feel like it this time....

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-December-24, 10:08, said:

Smith Peters in suit contracts? And even if you do play them, how could it possibly apply when the lead was a trump and declarer has drawn them all?

But I'm with sanst. Even a hapless idiot should see the heart tenace and plan what they'll do if declarer leads the suit.

I think the "any doubtful points should be ruled in favor of the non-offender" principle trumps the equity principle here.

The EBU White Book says that considering which card to play with small cards is not a "demonstrable" bridge reason, but for the Rabbit it was.