[MrAce]

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.

I read it. I just thought it is more likely to lead x from xxx (despite the agreement) than one of them playing 9 from AQ9x. But even if you believe both of them are equally unlikely (which is what I would believe) then what are you complaining about?

[Cyberyeti]

MrAce, on 2015-February-10, 18:41, said:

I read it. I just thought it is more likely to lead x from xxx (despite the agreement) than one of them playing 9 from AQ9x. But even if you believe both of them are equally unlikely (which is what I would believe) then what are you complaining about?

I think playing the 9 after a pause is normal from AQ9x, E having ruled out the singleton for the reasons Phil King outlined.

[MrAce]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-11, 00:42, said:

I think playing the 9 after a pause is normal from AQ9x, E having ruled out the singleton for the reasons Phil King outlined.

Sorry, I disagree that playing 9 can be normal but you know your opponents better than me.

[rhm]

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.

I do not understand this comment.
Why is it "a little dodgy" to think at trick one about how to play a suit in a most deceptive way?
I sometimes get the impression that the high priests of ethics at Bridge - and there are a lot of them - are going to ruin this game.
We need rules and ethics but we also need some freedom and leeway. This is a game after all.
What I really hate are all those players, who play fast and poorly.
There are a lot of them, certainly more than can play fast and imaginative.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-10, 17:44, said:

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♠.

---

West did well not to bid 1♠ and give the game away.

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2015-February-11, 05:09, said:

I do not understand this comment.
Why is it "a little dodgy" to think at trick one about how to play a suit in a most deceptive way?
I sometimes get the impression that the high priests of ethics at Bridge - and there are a lot of them - are going to ruin this game.
We need rules and ethics but we also need some freedom and leeway. This is a game after all.
What I really hate are all those players, who play fast and poorly.
There are a lot of them, certainly more than can play fast and imaginative.

Rainer Herrmann

It's well known to be unethical to think at other times when you have no reason other than deception (ie when you have 853 to think about how to signal when declarer is trying to find the K or Q and you suspect partner has it stiff, or in a suit contract as declarer with AKx opposite xx to think to conjure up the image that you were thinking of ducking to persuade them to lead another rather than find the killer switch), I see little difference here.

[PhantomSac]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-11, 18:21, said:

I see little difference here.

It's TRICK ONE! Did you read gnasher's post in this thread?

[Cyberyeti]

PhantomSac, on 2015-February-11, 18:42, said:

It's TRICK ONE! Did you read gnasher's post in this thread?

That's the only difference and he had plenty of time while I was thinking, I did not in any way rush him so the trick 1 thing shouldn't apply.

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-11, 20:03, said:

That's the only difference and he had plenty of time while I was thinking, I did not in any way rush him so the trick 1 thing shouldn't apply.

Once one stops accepting criticism, and acknowledging error, one has stopped learning. Your posts here suggest that may have happened.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2015-February-12, 00:03, said:

Once one stops accepting criticism, and acknowledging error, one has stopped learning. Your posts here suggest that may have happened.

The law is quite specific that Gnasher quoted and only applies when declarer rushes RHO, I think I may have slightly surprised him when after thinking I played low.

I'm very happy to accept that maybe I should have worked his holding out at trick one, but when the RHO in question freely admitted he was in the wrong and that I was entitled to an adjustment, but that he wasn't sure I was making it anyway so wasn't clear what it was, this guides you towards the alternative conclusion.

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-12, 09:31, said:

The law is quite specific that Gnasher quoted and only applies when declarer rushes RHO

I think you may have slightly misunderstood the regulation gnasher quoted. To me, it implies that a pause for thought at T1 by 3rd hand if declarer does not himself pause for thought will never be regarded as potentially misleading, even if 3rd hand does not need to think about T1. But it does not imply the converse, that a pause for thought at T1 by 3rd hand if declarer does pause for thought will be regarded as misleading if 3rd hand does not need to think about T1. It is always legitimate for 3rd hand to think about the whole hand at T1, so it is simply invalid for declarer to assume 3rd hand is thinking about T1, even if he is clearly thinking beyond a pause already made by declarer.

[Cyberyeti]

WellSpyder, on 2015-February-12, 09:40, said:

I think you may have slightly misunderstood the regulation gnasher quoted. To me, it implies that a pause for thought at T1 by 3rd hand if declarer does not himself pause for thought will never be regarded as potentially misleading, even if 3rd hand does not need to think about T1. But it does not imply the converse, that a pause for thought at T1 by 3rd hand if declarer does pause for thought will be regarded as misleading if 3rd hand does not need to think about T1. It is always legitimate for 3rd hand to think about the whole hand at T1, so it is simply invalid for declarer to assume 3rd hand is thinking about T1, even if he is clearly thinking beyond a pause already made by declarer.

Very often though, third hand has the chance to show they're not thinking about trick 1 but about the whole hand by playing their trick 1 card face down, and many people including me do this in this situation.

[PhantomSac]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-12, 11:15, said:

Very often though, third hand has the chance to show they're not thinking about trick 1 but about the whole hand by playing their trick 1 card face down, and many people including me do this in this situation.

You're right lots of people do this and it seems totally improper to me. Would it be ok to say out loud "partner, I am thinking about the hand, I have no problem on this trick"? Because that is also what you are doing when you do this. And what if your opp has never played against you and your partner has, if you don't put your card face down at trick 1 and you are thinking your partner knows you have a problem on this trick but your opponent does not (since it is not required and declarer will not know if you are thinking about trick 1 or the hand). That is unless of course you say to declarer "I am thinking about this trick, not the hand," which I have never seen anyone do.

As declarer do you tell the opponents whether you are thinking about trick 1 vs the hand?

[akwoo]

What I usually do now is to play to trick 1 and then hold up the start of trick 2 by not turning over my card. I frequently hold up play before trick 2 as opening leader also, since if everyone plays fast, I haven't even managed to subtract from 40 to get an estimate of partner's points.

I suppose that has exactly the same problems as playing your card face down?

Frankly, the only good solution from the UI point of view is a mandated 30 second pause once dummy comes down, but we all know how well skip bid regulations are followed in practice, and that's only 7-10 seconds.

[cherdano]

Keeping your card out is fine. It's also much nicer to the opponents - they can think about the hand knowing your card.

[runewell]

Thanks andy that is the point i wanted to make. It often makes sense to take time to develop a plan at trick one. I would have ruffed with the 8 and gone down. A spade ruff is going to be neccesary and at some point rho is going to get in and repeat. If i ruff with the q and j on those two occasions my chances of losing two trump tricks go way up

[runewell]

Thanks andy that is the point i wanted to make. It often makes sense to take time to develop a plan at trick one. I would have ruffed with the 8 and gone down. A spade ruff is going to be neccesary and at some point rho is going to get in and repeat. If i ruff with the q and j on those two occasions my chances of losing two trump tricks go way up

[runewell]

PhantomSac, on 2015-February-12, 16:32, said:

You're right lots of people do this and it seems totally improper to me. Would it be ok to say out loud "partner, I am thinking about the hand, I have no problem on this trick"? Because that is also what you are doing when you do this. And what if your opp has never played against you and your partner has, if you don't put your card face down at trick 1 and you are thinking your partner knows you have a problem on this trick but your opponent does not (since it is not required and declarer will not know if you are thinking about trick 1 or the hand). That is unless of course you say to declarer "I am thinking about this trick, not the hand," which I have never seen anyone do.

But what if you do have a problem at trick 1? You can't tell partner this directly or by failing to announce that you dont have a problem.