[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2015-October-23, 09:57, said:

If you have a good bridge reason for going into the tank, then the requirements for adjusting the score are not met. The opponent draws inferences about your hesitation at his own risk.

That's what I thought. But a ruling given at my table a while back by a very experienced TD implied that the requirements for adjusting the score are not met if you have ANY bridge reason for going into the tank. A defender who apparently thought it mattered which of obviously useless cards he kept for the last two tricks persuaded declarer to play for a squeeze rather than a finesse, and the TD decided that because he was thinking about bridge rather than dinner then that was OK.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2015-October-26, 03:48, said:

That's what I thought. But a ruling given at my table a while back by a very experienced TD implied that the requirements for adjusting the score are not met if you have ANY bridge reason for going into the tank. A defender who apparently thought it mattered which of obviously useless cards he kept for the last two tricks persuaded declarer to play for a squeeze rather than a finesse, and the TD decided that because he was thinking about bridge rather than dinner then that was OK.

I think the TD was wrongly ignoring the word demonstrable.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2015-October-26, 04:22, said:

I think the TD was wrongly ignoring the word demonstrable.

I was far from convinced by the decision, too! But what do you do when a defender (in a county A-team match) claims to have lost count of a suit and needed to work out whether there was any point in keeping the 13th card in a suit (which declarer had ruffed earlier)? His other two cards were two relatively low ones in a side suit that had only been played once so far. (I think he had the 8 or 9, but there were still 4 or 5 higher cards out, so it could not possibly take a trick.) After all, everyone does lose count of a suit occasionally if they have a lapse of concentration.

[VixTD]

WellSpyder, on 2015-October-26, 04:33, said:

I was far from convinced by the decision, too! But what do you do when a defender (in a county A-team match) claims to have lost count of a suit and needed to work out whether there was any point in keeping the 13th card in a suit (which declarer had ruffed earlier)? His other two cards were two relatively low ones in a side suit that had only been played once so far. (I think he had the 8 or 9, but there were still 4 or 5 higher cards out, so it could not possibly take a trick.) After all, everyone does lose count of a suit occasionally if they have a lapse of concentration.

This sounds to me like a breach of law 73D1. Players at that level are expected to keep track of cards played. The same would not be true of average players at the club.

[barmar]

I think the problem TDs run into is deciding which takes precedence: 73D1's requirement to be "particularly careful" in tempo-sensitive situations, or 73F's statement that you have to have a "demonstrable bridge reason" for your BIT.

A frequent example of this is when someone supposedly claims that they hesitated because they were trying to decide whether to give count. If they're experienced players, they're supposed to plan ahead so that they can maintain consistent tempo and follow 73D1. Therefore, this would not be considered a "demonstrable bridge reason".