[Cyberyeti]

This was prompted by a hand in interesting bridge hands. http://www.bridgebas...one-more-trick/

---

Your LHO lead A♠ and follows with a spade that indicates a club switch which his partner finds after ruffing the second spade.

LHO then thinks for AGES then plays a third spade which his partner ruffs high and you're -1.

You call the man in and say that if the third spade had arrived in tempo, then it's possible that RHO would have ruffed low allowing you to crash the trumps and make the contract.

Any sympathy ? and does class of opps matter ?

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 06:55, said:

Any sympathy ? and does class of opps matter ?

Yes and yes, I think.

Looks like we need to follow the usual UI approach:

Was there UI? Yes, a BIT.

Was there a LA to the choice made? This is where the class of opps might matter - against non-expert opponents at least, ruffing low might well be a LA.

Could the UI demonstrably suggest the choice made over the LA? I think so - partner would presumably not have to think for long if declarer had another ♠, so the UI certainly suggests you should consider ruffing high.

Was there damage? Yes - a low ruff would allow the contract to make.

So everything depends on the answer to the second question above in my mind.

[c_corgi]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-16, 07:18, said:

... against non-expert opponents at least, ruffing low might well be a LA.
...

Would an expert West need to think for ages to realise that it would be automatic for East to ruff the 3rd spade high from an original holding of Qxx? If East and West are of equivalent standard perhaps West's long think implies ruffing low is an LA for East. It may be that the low ruff only ceases to be an LA if East is a stronger player than West.

[NickRW]

WellSpyder, on 2013-July-16, 07:18, said:

Was there a LA to the choice made? This is where the class of opps might matter - against non-expert opponents at least, ruffing low might well be a LA.

I don't count myself as expert, but that 3rd spade is getting splattered, with or without the bit.

Nick

[Cyberyeti]

NickRW, on 2013-July-16, 07:48, said:

I don't count myself as expert, but that 3rd spade is getting splattered, with or without the bit.

Nick

Fine if you don't think partner can have Axxxx, x, Ax, A10xxx where you still have an overruff of dummy to come if you ruff low.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 07:59, said:

Fine if you don't think partner can have Axxxx, x, Ax, A10xxx where you still have an overruff of dummy to come if you ruff low.

Isn't ♦A in dummy?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2013-July-16, 08:08, said:

Isn't ♦A in dummy?

Sorry, yes. Difficult to see where partner might have another useful entry.

Ruffing low is the sort of careless play that I don't think at any class where W would hesitate would qualify as serious error, so would need to be considered.

[billw55]

Ruffing low looks nullo to me. I think it would be difficult to find a player that would ruff low, that would also be able to interpret the meaning of the BIT. To quote another poster, forcing east to make an obviously bad play sounds like a case of "if it hesitates, shoot it".

[RMB1]

Just curious, if the question is hypothetical, why "EBU"?

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2013-July-16, 08:42, said:

Just curious, if the question is hypothetical, why "EBU"?

I've long had a suspicion that England is just a figment of the imagination. The colored books were written just to support the pretense.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2013-July-16, 08:52, said:

I've long had a suspicion that England is just a figment of the imagination. The colored books were written just to support the pretense.

We don't have colored books.

We do keep changing the colour of the coloured books to keep everyone on their toes: two weeks to the Blue Book.

And of course the White Book is not a coloured book.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2013-July-16, 08:42, said:

Just curious, if the question is hypothetical, why "EBU"?

Because in the US I was reasonably sure that you couldn't say he'd ruff low 30% of the time, I wasn't sure if you could in the UK.

Quote

Ruffing low looks nullo to me. I think it would be difficult to find a player that would ruff low, that would also be able to interpret the meaning of the BIT. To quote another poster, forcing east to make an obviously bad play sounds like a case of "if it hesitates, shoot it".

It's the sort of play that is nullo, but there is a class of player present in my local clubs that wouldn't even consider doing anything else if the spade was returned in tempo as they would ruff low in the hope of getting another ruff and only think later that there was no way of partner getting back in. They are the same people that would hesitate opposite.

[MickyB]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 09:54, said:

Because in the US I was reasonably sure that you couldn't say he'd ruff low 30% of the time, I wasn't sure if you could in the UK.

If RHO would ruff low 30% of the time without the BIT, then ruffing low is an LA, and the result is calculated based on them ruffing low. Weighted rulings only apply when it is unclear what would have happened after the infraction.

[barmar]

There's also a class of players that will ruff just because they thing the goal is to prevent declarer from getting a pitch on the Jack, and not consider the possibility of an uppercut. I even think that I might do this if I weren't thinking very hard and just playing on auto-pilot.

What I'm not sure about is how much partner's tank would suggest that the uppercut is likely.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-July-16, 10:04, said:

There's also a class of players that will ruff just because they thing the goal is to prevent declarer from getting a pitch on the Jack, and not consider the possibility of an uppercut. I even think that I might do this if I weren't thinking very hard and just playing on auto-pilot.

What I'm not sure about is how much partner's tank would suggest that the uppercut is likely.

Well if declarer had another spade, partner's spade would hit the table somewhere around light speed, so it would raise the question "why the pause".

[StevenG]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 10:36, said:

Well if declarer had another spade, partner's spade would hit the table somewhere around light speed, so it would raise the question "why the pause".

If it's MPs, trying to work out the best chance of getting it 2 off?

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 10:36, said:

Well if declarer had another spade, partner's spade would hit the table somewhere around light speed,

This I can agree with.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 10:36, said:

so it would raise the question "why the pause".

But would it raise that question to a player who is so unaware as to ruff low? Maybe this question is irrelevant under the law.

Considering the problem from west's seat, I think he has a valid bridge reason to tank. He must consider several possible initial trump holdings with partner:

Qxx - declarer is always down, exit another suit
Qx - third spade ruffed with Q is necessary
xxx - needs declarer to take the trump finesse. A third spade ruffed and overruffed increases the chance that declarer will play for the drop. Exit another suit.
xx - also needs declarer to finesse, but there is no obvious way to help him do so. Exit another suit.

So I think west erred.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2013-July-16, 12:44, said:

Considering the problem from west's seat, I think he has a valid bridge reason to tank. He must consider several possible initial trump holdings with partner:

Qxx - declarer is always down, exit another suit
Qx - third spade ruffed with Q is necessary
xxx - needs declarer to take the trump finesse. A third spade ruffed and overruffed increases the chance that declarer will play for the drop. Exit another suit.
xx - also needs declarer to finesse, but there is no obvious way to help him do so. Exit another suit.

So I think west erred.

But as pointed out above, there are plenty of layouts where simply nullifying declarer's spade winner is sufficient to beat the contract regardless of whether you make a trump trick.

[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-16, 09:54, said:

Because in the US I was reasonably sure that you couldn't say he'd ruff low 30% of the time, I wasn't sure if you could in the UK.

I am not sure which jurisdiction you think uses 30% threshold for logical alternatives but I am sure neither the ACBL or the EBU does.

The definition in the 2007 Laws was championed by Americans, so it is possible they follow the definition now. The EBU has refused to put numbers on its interpretation of the 2007 definition but in the EBU there could be logical alternatives which only 20% would seriously consider and <10% would actually do.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2013-July-16, 16:30, said:

I am not sure which jurisdiction you think uses 30% threshold for logical alternatives but I am sure neither the ACBL or the EBU does.

The definition in the 2007 Laws was championed by Americans, so it is possible they follow the definition now. The EBU has refused to put numbers on its interpretation of the 2007 definition but in the EBU there could be logical alternatives which only 20% would seriously consider and <10% would actually do.

I was using it in the context of a possible weighted score not as a LA.

I'm fully aware of the definition of a LA the EBU uses.

I'm confused as to the "after the irregularity" clause quoted previously.

Quote

If RHO would ruff low 30% of the time without the BIT, then ruffing low is an LA, and the result is calculated based on them ruffing low. Weighted rulings only apply when it is unclear what would have happened after the infraction.

IMO the irregularity could be argued to have been committed at the point of the hesitation which W would have known was useful to his side, rather than at the point of the ruff so it was after the infraction.