[Cyberyeti]

IMPs

---

W leads 3♦-2-9-4, E returns Q♦, take it from here.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-09, 05:13, said:

IMPs
W leads 3♦-2-9-4, E returns Q♦, take it from here.

---

I'm no good at this kind of play problem and no cunning plan occurs to me but I'll have a go. You wish you had played a ♦ honour at trick one.
You hope to win 2♠s, 4♥s, and 4♣s. You expect to lose 1♦, 1♠ and at least 1♥.
Now, a vague plan might be to play RHO for ♠A and LHO for ♥K. If LHO has ♠A, you might be able to recover by ruffing a ♠ in dummy or 3♦s in hand.
Anyway, you can start by ruffing ♦Q with ♥J (which is likely to win, even when LHO has ♥K).
Finesse ♥T, If that wins, then cash ♥A, in an attempt to avoid a defensive cross-ruff. Lead ♠ twice towards ♠KQ and hope for the best

[Cyberyeti]

The reason I posted this is because it's actually a ruling problem but I was trying to get an idea of what lines people would play. What happened at the table was that E hesitated for some time before playing the 9♦ and returning the Q (after declarer had thought for a little while, it wasn't that he was being rushed). I know you're allowed to think at trick 1 but E admitted that he was trying to find the most deceptive way of playing the diamond suit which is IMO a little dodgy.

So I ruffed the second diamond low thinking he couldn't have AKQ987 or he wouldn't have a problem at trick 1 and got overruffed. If he'd played in tempo I'd have ruffed high without any particular idea of what I'd have done next.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-10, 08:07, said:

The reason I posted this is because it's actually a ruling problem but I was trying to get an idea of what lines people would play. What happened at the table was that E hesitated for some time before playing the 9♦ and returning the Q (after declarer had thought for a little while, it wasn't that he was being rushed). I know you're allowed to think at trick 1 but E admitted that he was trying to find the most deceptive way of playing the diamond suit which is IMO a little dodgy.

So I ruffed the second diamond low thinking he couldn't have AKQ987 or he wouldn't have a problem at trick 1 and got overruffed. If he'd played in tempo I'd have ruffed high without any particular idea of what I'd have done next.

What did you think East was thinking of?

What holding where you playing him for?

What holding were you playing West for?

What did you think the double of 2♦ showed? I suppose some players would play it as takeout of hearts, but I am willing to bet that not only was your rho NOT such a player, but also that you knew or suspected that he wasn't. 90% of people who play bridge use the double to show diamonds.

Unless the opps lead low from xx, the auction and the lead marked the holdings, and his tank made it even more obvious that he was working you over.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with thinking and nothing wrong with falsecarding. Your opp did nothing wrong, if his tank was because he was thinking about how to falsecard.

Usually a slow falsecard doesn't work, because declarer can often work out what is going on, and that is (imo) what should have happened here.

[Cyberyeti]

Interesting, I thought he might have AQ9x in a 4144 and his partner Kxx.

If I lead to partner's Q (side suit in a trump contract) and you have AKx as declarer, dummy has xx and trumps, you're not allowed to think which of AK is more deceptive to win and in the process persuade each defender that the other has the remaining top honour and I don't see any difference here.

[WellSpyder]

mikeh, on 2015-February-10, 10:36, said:

Finally, there is nothing wrong with thinking and nothing wrong with falsecarding. Your opp did nothing wrong, if his tank was because he was thinking about how to falsecard.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't think the second sentence in the para I have quoted above follows from the first. While thinking and falsecarding are indeed both entirely acceptable, it doesn't follow that both together are also OK if you have reason to be aware that the hesitation could mislead declarer. I'm sure one of our TDs could quote the relevant law.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-10, 10:54, said:

Interesting, I thought he might have AQ9x in a 4144 and his partner Kxx.

If I lead to partner's Q (side suit in a trump contract) and you have AKx as declarer, dummy has xx and trumps, you're not allowed to think which of AK is more deceptive to win and in the process persuade each defender that the other has the remaining top honour and I don't see any difference here.

What I didn't mention in my last post, but should have, is wtf did you think was going on when he returned the Q?

Did you ask LHO what the double of 2♦ showed? Did you check, before playing to trick 2, what they would lead from xxx in partner's suit, not having raised? I'd expect to hear 'low' and that wouldn't help, but once in a while you learn: top, or mud, and now the hand is clear.

You are an experienced player. I don't know the circumstances of this hand, but my own experience is that if I am playing locally (for me, that means within 1,000 kms or so, but I live in a BIG country), if I don't know the opps, then they are almost certainly not very good. Most not very good players use the double to show diamonds, not the 4=1=4=4 you were playing for, and I'd certainly have asked that question of LHO. Of course, most not very good players either can't answer this or won't give a straight answer anyway, but one asks since it cannot hurt and may help. Once in a while you get reliable, accurate, information.

I think you talked yourself into a bad play, and that your low ruff makes you Simon's 'unlucky expert' on this hand.

You're not the first nor the last to do this, and I speak from personal experience

[Cyberyeti]

It was in the top division of a county match so a decent standard but not WC. Not a player I knew well.

I knew it was not xxx from their lead style, but could have been Hxx.

I thought he was thinking A or 9 at trick 1, and he can return what he likes at trick 2 as if he has AQ9x, he knows his partner has Kxx so his card doesn't matter. Maybe he had ♠AJ109 and wanted to say that by returning the Q.

The one thing I was certain of was that he couldn't hold AKQ987 as he has nothing legitimate to think about with that so ruffing low can't be wrong.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-10, 12:01, said:

I thought he was thinking A or 9 at trick 1, and he can return what he likes at trick 2 as if he has AQ9x, he knows his partner has Kxx so his card doesn't matter. Maybe he had ♠AJ109 and wanted to say that by returning the Q.

Wouldn't the Q suggest no preference? To show spades, wouldn't he play the A, assuming that your interpretation was correct?

Plus, if his partner held the Kxx, your presumably competent, if not WC, rho knew full well that his partner wasn't ever getting on lead so why would he be telegraphing anything about his hand?

A very strong partner of mine once told me that I was over-analysing the opps' play on a hand, pointing out that my reasoning required that the opp be doing something very subtle, when the vast majority of opps either aren't capable of such subtlety or, if they are, aren't going to be playing at that level on most hands.

What you faced was a collection of clues, and the fairest inference was that something odd was going on. I respectfully (and I am not being sarcastic) suggest that you had enough clues that you should have got it right. That isn't to say that you were home free if you ruffed with the Q, but, having done so, I would lead a heart to the Ace and a low heart back. If RHO has Kx, then he wins perforce, and the heart 10 is an entry to lead spades up a second time even if he forces me to ruff another diamond high.

Maybe rho ought not to have done what he did....maybe, if he wanted to falsecard, he should have done it in tempo. I'd like to know how quickly you called for the low diamond from dummy. I am not suggesting you did anything wrong, no matter how long you took, but if you called low fairly quickly, then rho is absolutely entitled to think. When I am 3rd hand, I usually try (when I remember) to take my time at trick one no matter how routine my play should be.....I like to take time to think about the hand, even when trick one poses no problem at all. Later tricks may and I want to game out various problems early, to avoid a break in tempo later. But in any event, even if he erred in principle, you take 'advantage' of his BIT at your own risk, especially when, as here, his bidding and carding could be seen as clues to what was going on.

Finally, and I promise that I mean it, what could go wrong by ruffing with the Q?. If LHO has Kxx in diamonds, he cannot hold K9xx in hearts. If he has K9xx in hearts, he must have a stiff diamond, since he cannot have Kxx in diamonds as well, and you can't make, whether you ruff low or high (high, he declines to overruff, and will in the fullness of time get 2 heart tricks).

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-10, 10:54, said:

Interesting, I thought he might have AQ9x in a 4144 and his partner Kxx.

Why didn't you simply ask what the double meant, instead of trying to guess?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2015-February-10, 13:50, said:

Why didn't you simply ask what the double meant, instead of trying to guess?

Simply because I didn't think I had to, the hesitation blocked out the chance that he could have all of them in my mind.

[PhilKing]

I hadn't got around to answering, but it had not occurred to me that diamonds were not 1-6.

[PhantomSac]

Did the hesitation also jedi mind trick you into believing that that is a valid argument?

[MrAce]

AQ9x is not a holding one would play 9. He is not defending 3 NT. He can lose to stiff K to start with and if pd has K he will lose nothing by playing A.

Only reasonable holding is AKQ9 and that is if they play reverse suit preference due to Q play at T2.. But hesitating with AKQ9 is not any different than hesitating with AKQ98x.

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2015-February-10, 15:43, said:

AQ9x is not a holding one would play 9. He is not defending 3 NT. He can lose to stiff K to start with and if pd has K he will lose nothing by playing A.

Only reasonable holding is AKQ9 and that is if they play reverse suit preference due to Q play at T2.. But hesitating with AKQ9 is not any different than hesitating with AKQ98x.

Try reading the previous posts, partner is known to hold Kxx or a singleton from the card led if he has AQ9x, the smallest spot card was led which they don't lead from xxx, so AKQ9 is out too.

[PhilKing]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-10, 16:27, said:

Try reading the previous posts, partner is known to hold Kxx or a singleton from the card led if he has AQ9x, the smallest spot card was led which they don't lead from xxx, so AKQ9 is out too.

We know East knows the layout. If he has AQ9x South can't have 3 diamonds, that would give West a good six-card spade suit! (This is not completely true, since 3♣ should be a psyche, but if 2♦ showed a good raise I would just have bid game, since I actually have clubs).

Your argument seems to be "I stopped playing bridge because I knew East would never play slowly with 6 diamonds" when every piece of objective evidence said the opposite. I do not doubt that you would have made without the hesitation, but I have a different threshold for Sewogs than Nigel.

FWIW I 100% do not think it's OK to play a slow falsecard, so I would give a PP to East.

[PhantomSac]

You want to give someone a PP for taking time at trick 1? Wat?

I just want to clarify, was the trick 1 play slow or was the trick 2 play slow? That is a big difference. If he won and thought for a long time before playing the DQ that is bizarre but if he took time at trick 1 before playing what is the problem?

[PhilKing]

PhantomSac, on 2015-February-10, 17:33, said:

You want to give someone a PP for taking time at trick 1? Wat?

I just want to clarify, was the trick 1 play slow or was the trick 2 play slow? That is a big difference. If he won and thought for a long time before playing the DQ that is bizarre but if he took time at trick 1 before playing what is the problem?

Trick 1. If that was slow, then it's out of order outside the USA.

[Cyberyeti]

PhilKing, on 2015-February-10, 16:46, said:

We know East knows the layout. If he has AQ9x South can't have 3 diamonds, that would give West a good six-card spade suit! (This is not completely true, since 3♣ should be a psyche, but if 2♦ showed a good raise I would just have bid game, since I actually have clubs).

Your argument seems to be "I stopped playing bridge because I knew East would never play slowly with 6 diamonds" when every piece of objective evidence said the opposite. I do not doubt that you would have made without the hesitation, but I have a different threshold for Sewogs than Nigel.

FWIW I 100% do not think it's OK to play a slow falsecard, so I would give a PP to East.

Actually it's not 100% clear I would have made without the hesitation which is why I posted this.

Say the layout is:

---

now I'm not convinced you can objectively make it so it may be correct in fact to ruff with the 8.

The actual layout is this with the 9♥ and 7 reversed, so various lines work but Nigel's goes off as E returns a trump on winning K♥ and W plays another when in with A♠.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2015-February-10, 17:37, said:

Trick 1. If that was slow, then it's out of order outside the USA.

This is the relevant English regulation:

8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand
If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary.

The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy.

I suppose that the ruling should depend on how long Cyberyeti's "little while" was. But I hate the idea that South should be able to control East's tempo.

If you do decide that East's hesitation was an infraction but South committed a SEWoG, then I think this:

Quote

FWIW I 100% do not think it's OK to play a slow falsecard, so I would give a PP to East.

is incorrect. EW should get the score they would have got without the infraction, and NS should get that score less the amount that was chucked via the SEWoG.