[Cyberyeti]

---

Follow the play up to the key point (E plays the 10 which seems to have been removed).

S now agrees he hesitated, he said he was thinking about which of ♣A or K to play.

He wins the A, crosses to dummy with a diamond and leads a heart.

W wins and needing to find partner's black K, thinks that declarer could not hesitate with ♣AK, but might be thinking of ducking without the K, leads another club and declarer claims.

W thinks he's had any chance of making the right choice removed by declarer's tempo.

Now what if anything ?

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-October-17, 15:42, said:

Follow the play up to the key point (E plays the 10 which seems to have been removed).S now agrees he hesitated, he said he was thinking about which of ♣A or K to play. He wins the A, crosses to dummy with a diamond and leads a heart. W wins and needing to find partner's black K, thinks that declarer could not hesitate with ♣AK, but might be thinking of ducking without the K, leads another club and declarer claims.W thinks he's had any chance of making the right choice removed by declarer's tempo. Now what if anything ?

---

L23 seems to endow the director with enormous power...

TFLB L23 said:

Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

Declarer could have known that this break in tempo might mislead defenders, so, IMO, the director should rule 3N-2.

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2014-October-17, 16:48, said:

L23 seems to endow the director with enormous power... Declarer could have known that this break in tempo might mislead defenders, so, IMO, the director should rule 3N-2.

Does he have to rule 3N-2 ?

in EBUland is this a case where he can say "I think you get this right about n% of the time if he plays in tempo, so I give n+10 (NOS bias) 3N-2 and 90-n 3N="

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-October-17, 17:35, said:

Does he have to rule 3N-2 ?

in EBUland is this a case where he can say "I think you get this right about n% of the time if he plays in tempo, so I give n+10 (NOS bias) 3N-2 and 90-n 3N="

"Awards an adjusted score" means follow law 12. In the EBU, under law 12, weighted scores (12C1c) are the norm, so yes, the TD can say that.

[lamford]

The law says "had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action" or words to that effect. I think the White Book has decided that to break tempo to consider whether to give count is not acceptable, so considering which of touching honours to play should fall into the same category.

You are correct, I think, that you only adjust for the damage. How often would West get it right with no BIT? I would have thought quite a bit less than half of the time. Assuming South is 5-2-3-3, he is more likely to have the king of spades than the king of clubs. However, we have to err in favour of the non-offenders, and 40% of 3NT-2, 60% of 3NT= seems fair. And it ought to be explained to South why he should not hesitate in this situation.

Quiz question for SBs. How many times does the word "demonstrable" appear in the Laws?

[pgrice]

lamford, on 2014-October-18, 02:49, said:

Quiz question for SBs. How many times does the word "demonstrable" appear in the Laws?

Twice … demonstrably occurs 4 times ...

[Cyberyeti]

As an aside (I was W), I think partner should have made it a 100% adjustment. Given my leading preferences (which partner well knows, we've played together 20 years), I'm known to be 4333 and would have led from Kxx rather than 10xx at trick 1. Thus playing the J♣ rather than the 10 will steer me in the right direction.

I think I get this right a bit more than 30% but less than 50% so was thinking the adjustment would be 50/50, but we're in the same ballpark.

[Aardv]

Look at this as a defensive problem for West when he wins trick three. Declarer will make three heart tricks and, unless he's playing a very deep game, exactly three diamond tricks. So he needs at least two club tricks, and we don't need to attack the suit now.

On the other hand, if partner's hand is xxx xxx xxxx Axx we need to play the jack of spades. That's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick three, which ought to have been suit preference for clubs.

Now look at West's problem on lead at trick seven. Again, the jack of spades will always beat the contract when it can be beaten, but if partner had KJ10x of clubs we need to play a club to get the second undertrick, in what looks like a normal contract. And that's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick two...

To get an adjustment from me West is going to have to have to explain convincingly why he would sometimes have got this right.

If you do allow West to switch to a spade at trick seven, should it be the eight (arguably correct) or, at least some of the time, the more obvious jack? And if the jack, are you going to make declarer cover it all the time? On reflection, I think yes.

[gnasher]

Aardv, on 2014-October-18, 03:57, said:

Now look at West's problem on lead at trick seven. Again, the jack of spades will always beat the contract when it can be beaten, but if partner had KJ10x of clubs we need to play a club to get the second undertrick, in what looks like a normal contract. And that's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick two...

To get an adjustment from me West is going to have to have to explain convincingly why he would sometimes have got this right.

East also had an opportunity to give suit-preference on the second round of diamonds. If he played the ♦3, reinforcing the message of ♥8, it's hard to see how West would ever get this right; if he played ♦8 or ♦4, it's hard to understand why West played a second club. Of course, this argument assumes that EW do give suit-preference with their spare small cards, which they might not .

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-October-18, 04:50

[lamford]

It would be useful to know if this was matchpoints or IMPs. The other point is that you only deny EW redress for a serious error, and gauge how often they would have beaten it in the position they found themselves after the infraction. The play, or poor carding, before then is not relevant.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-October-18, 05:44, said:

It would be useful to know if this was matchpoints or IMPs. The other point is that you only deny EW redress for a serious error, and gauge how often they would have beaten it in the position they found themselves after the infraction. The play, or poor carding, before then is not relevant.

I don't think anybody is suggesting denying EW redress because of a serious error. The suggestion is that East's carding (before and after the infraction) means that West would never have got the play right, so there is no damage to redress.

For that reason, the carding before the infraction is indeed relevant. So is the play, to some extent, because it tells us something about how well West was thinking that day.

[Cyberyeti]

IMPs.

We don't tend to SP with the small cards most of the time, we tend to complete the count signal with the lowest suitable card (and play count throughout when following suit, so the first card is also count).

Also playing the J♠ back still beats it one as you crocodile with the A to follow to guarantee -1.

This is a known position as with 4M4m they open the minor, so S is known to be 5233.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-October-18, 02:49, said:

However, we have to err in favour of the non-offenders, and 40% of 3NT-2, 60% of 3NT= seems fair. And it ought to be explained to South why he should not hesitate in this situation.

gnasher, on 2014-October-18, 06:43, said:

The suggestion is that East's carding (before and after the infraction) means that West would never have got the play right, so there is no damage to redress.

South may judge that 60% of 3N making is an excellent result. South would welcome Gnasher's arguments, fearing that, without the deceptive hesitation, West might find the successful defence by luck or logic, especially if West did not notice or trust East's signals. Weighted rulings reward and encourage wrong-doing.

[gnasher]

We rule in the context of the players' agreements, and in the context of what we think West actually knew at the table. If West wasn't watching his partner's signals or doesn't trust his partner to signal correctly, he's welcome to say so to the director, or it might emerge in the course of the director's or appeals committee's enquiries. Likewise if they simply don't play suit preference when following suit.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-October-18, 10:32

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2014-October-18, 04:47, said:

East also had an opportunity to give suit-preference on the second round of diamonds. If he played the ♦3, reinforcing the message of ♥8, it's hard to see how West would ever get this right; if he played ♦8 or ♦4, it's hard to understand why West played a second club. Of course, this argument assumes that EW do give suit-preference with their spare small cards, which they might not .

Yes. One of the TD's objectives on this hand is to establish the extent to which E/W play suit preference in this situation, but without making it obvious that he is asking a leading question. I think the TD should ask West to explain his thought process whilst defending the hand.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2014-October-18, 11:23, said:

Yes. One of the TD's objectives on this hand is to establish the extent to which E/W play suit preference in this situation, but without making it obvious that he is asking a leading question. I think the TD should ask West to explain his thought process whilst defending the hand.

What you'd have got was that declarer was 5233. I need partner to hold one of the black kings, I can lead a club when I win the first heart and this will clear it up unless this goes 10-K or 10-A without prejudicing my chances. If it does go 10-K or 10-A I need to guess well. Now declarer has played the 10-A slowly, he can't have AK so I play another club automatically.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-October-18, 08:32, said:

We don't tend to SP with the small cards most of the time

Very sensible. Doing so is usually more help to the declarer. In fact, Aardv's analysis that it is always right to switch to a spade means that I would tend to adjust to approaching 100% of 3NT-2, as a player as strong as you would surely have done so if you had not been deflected by declarer's infraction.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2014-October-18, 13:19, said:

Very sensible. Doing so is usually more help to the declarer. In fact, Aardv's analysis that it is always right to switch to a spade means that I would tend to adjust to approaching 100% of 3NT-2, as a player as strong as you would surely have done so if you had not been deflected by declarer's infraction.

Don't bet on my mental capabilities that particular day, having had to get up 2 hours earlier than normal and move a load of furniture around for some builders who were turning up earlier than anticipated, I was more vegetable than animal that evening.

[Cyberyeti]

Aardv, on 2014-October-18, 03:57, said:

Look at this as a defensive problem for West when he wins trick three. Declarer will make three heart tricks and, unless he's playing a very deep game, exactly three diamond tricks. So he needs at least two club tricks, and we don't need to attack the suit now.

On the other hand, if partner's hand is xxx xxx xxxx Axx we need to play the jack of spades. That's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick three, which ought to have been suit preference for clubs.

Now look at West's problem on lead at trick seven. Again, the jack of spades will always beat the contract when it can be beaten, but if partner had KJ10x of clubs we need to play a club to get the second undertrick, in what looks like a normal contract. And that's consistent with East's 8 of hearts at trick two...

To get an adjustment from me West is going to have to have to explain convincingly why he would sometimes have got this right.

If you do allow West to switch to a spade at trick seven, should it be the eight (arguably correct) or, at least some of the time, the more obvious jack? And if the jack, are you going to make declarer cover it all the time? On reflection, I think yes.

(edited) Partner will be 2344 and that changes everything (declarer's known to have 2 hearts, 3 diamonds and they open 1♣ when 4/4 in the blacks). Clubs are fine at tricks 4 and 7, partner ducks twice and we cash 2 clubs as soon as declarer plays a spade.

At trick 7, the 8♠ is as good as the J if partner doesn't have the K and better if he does, declarer wins the 9 and still only has 8 tricks, when he plays a second spade, you hop up and play a club.