[gombo121]

---

(it is not especially relevant, but 1♣ was polish club and 1♠ is 4+, 7+HCP)



Against 3♠ doubled S leads ♦A, everybody plays quickly.
S switches to ♣Q and E goes into a tank (it was described as "for a minute" which may or may not be fully accurate, but the fact is not disputed).
Later S plays for ♣J being with N.

S summons TD claiming that thinking so long before playing ♣K from the dummy W was trying to deceive him into thinking that he does not hold ♣J, because with that card it is obvious to play the king. He claims that the declarer should have played ♣K and thought about the further play afterwards.

E very emphatically claims that he is not playing anything until he figures out what's going on.

Both S and E are players of the highest international level.


What is your opinion?

[paulg]

[I think you mean East, who is declaring, rather than West in the post]

This is Law 73 country where the relevant sections are probably the following:

Law 73 D1 It is desirable for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. Players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.

Law 73 D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (for example hesitating before playing a singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).

Law 73 E2 If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to benefit that opponent, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

I am not close to the standard of these players (although I have probably played against them a few times in Swiss events).

My instinctive reaction is that the ♣Q is an unusual lead and I would not be surprised if declarer had a think. What if it is a singleton? Could it be from ♣Qx or even, worst of all, from ♣Q10x? It seems like there may be a legitimate bridge reason for declarer to take a think at this point.

But I know a lot of top bridge players and they play a lot more bridge than I do with a great deal more experience in such circumstances. So I'm not sure how valid my opinion is unless I agree with them!

[pescetom]

I am not as good a player as (modest) paulg but FWIW I too find the Q lead unusual, even looking at the auction and hand. Would be curious to hear what experts think about this choice.
My gut feeling is that if anyone is messing with the head of opponent here it is South, not East.
In any case, Declarer has every right to think it out (and maybe have a look at the leads section on system card too).

[helene_t]

If S really said in the presence of one or both of their opps that they thought that declarer was trying to deceive, they deserve a warning. You can't accuse your opponents of cheating without much better evidence, and in any case this is not the time for cheating accusations.

Anyway, I think it has merits, I can understand why it would be somewhat irrational for declarer not to play ♣K in tempo but, as others have said, it is a weird lead. The purpose of the lead may well have been to create confusion, which is perfectly fine. But then you don't get redress when the ploy backfires.

[paulg]

I do think that the lead of the ♣Q is an excellent switch for a number of reasons, although I'm not sure I'd find it without a lot of thought.

[akwoo]

I think this is a situation where further clarity in regulations would be helpful, and local/national differences in expectations are best made explicit.

I would like the rule to be that any thinking that does not affect play to the current trick should take place between tricks. My proposed regulation seems to be the de facto expectation in some locales but not all. (Note this may require a user interface adjustment on BBO so that players explicitly quit tricks.) One could imagine the opposite expectation, that play is never held up between tricks and players only take time at their turn to play. I'm not even insisting on a uniform regulation, just knowledge of different customs.

[pescetom]

 akwoo, on 2025-December-11, 10:13, said:

I think this is a situation where further clarity in regulations would be helpful, and local/national differences in expectations are best made explicit.

I would like the rule to be that any thinking that does not affect play to the current trick should take place between tricks. My proposed regulation seems to be the de facto expectation in some locales but not all. (Note this may require a user interface adjustment on BBO so that players explicitly quit tricks.) One could imagine the opposite expectation, that play is never held up between tricks and players only take time at their turn to play. I'm not even insisting on a uniform regulation, just knowledge of different customs.

One data point from Italy.
The de facto expectation is as you suggest. What makes it somewhat less practical is that many defenders feel entitled to bang down a lead immediately after winning a trick, whatever defender does with his card. This puts unfair pressure on Declarer and may well motivate him to think longer at his turn of play instead.

Don't hold your breath expecting BBO to make interface changes. But in a rosy future, I don't see why online a defender should be aware of partner's tempo in the first place: at very least bundle it in with opponent, preferably add some delay too if they are both fast. If OTOH there is a real tank, flag the call so that players and Director have a trace of the occurrence and can handle the implications.

[gombo121]

paulg, on 2025-December-11, 04:05, said:

[size="2"][I think you mean East, who is declaring, rather than West in the post]

Sorry, of course it is East declaring.
I'd edit the post.

[blackshoe]

Ideally, East should have done his thinking before playing from dummy at trick one. Nonetheless, he might have missed the possibility of the ♣Q lead at trick two. As others have said, it's unusual enough that declarer is justified in thinking it out before playing to it. As others have also said, South's blatant accusation of cheating is beyond the pale.

I would give an expert player a disciplinary penalty of 25% of a top to South for violation of Law 74A2, per Law 91A. As for the rest of the ruling, Declarer has IMO not violated Law 73D2 (if he had, I wouldn't be giving South a DP). Nor has he violated 73D1. He has a demonstrable bridge reason for his tempo variation, so he hasn't violated 73E either. So no score adjustment. I would be reading these laws to the table, even in the face of someone's "we don't have time for that!" :-)

Helene suggested a warning instead of a penalty in MPs. She has a point, but I think that players "of high international level" ought to know better, hence the penalty.

Full disclosure: I am of the opinion that the "we don't give penalties" culture in bridge is a terrible idea.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2025-December-11, 14:59, said:

Full disclosure: I am of the opinion that the "we don't give penalties" culture in bridge is a terrible idea.

I endorse that not only at international level, but at lowest level too.
I'm sick to the gills of hearing "you shouldn't have punished me mere club players for that".
In what kind of sport can one can play without knowing the rules or break them without tangible consequences?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-December-11, 15:47, said:

I endorse that not only at international level, but at lowest level too.
I'm sick to the gills of hearing "you shouldn't have punished me mere club players for that".
In what kind of sport can one can play without knowing the rules or break them without tangible consequences?

Apparently duplicate bridge.
The idea that violations of the Laws should only receive at most, a warning is unconscionable.

[mycroft]

We only have the description of the OP (who may or may not have been at the table, may have heard this from a friend, or from East or South, or...) as to what South *said*.

"I couldn't see a reason why it would take so long to think, having not needed to on the opening lead, on the ♣Q switch, unless declarer did not hold the ♣J. So I played [the further defence]. Could you look at this, please, in case there was a better time to think?"

If you can't ask this, then how can you ever get a 73E2 ruling?

Or even "in this situation, given the quick play to trick 1, it should have been clear to declarer that the pause could generate this implication, and I'm not sure he was careful enough to avoid it."

And if the ruling comes back "here, I'll demonstrate the bridge reason for the pause at this time" (whether it was East who demonstrated it or the director), well, then, fine. If it doesn't - or even if it does, but a strong warning/penalty for "a player of your calibre should have been able to foresee this and work out what you would do at trick 1" (or, depending on the RA, "had you thought about the hand for 15 seconds or so before playing to trick 1 *as required by regulations*, you might have foreseen this. Having not done so, your requirement to 'be particularly careful when variations may work to [your] benefit' is strengthened."), then also fine.

It is absolutely valid to point out a potential violation of the proprieties. That can not be consummate with an accusation of cheating, or it would be impossible to get rectification for improper behaviour. Remember, intent is required for a claim of ethics; it is no more unethical to (without intent) fail to meet 73E2 (note: "could have been", not "was", aware) than it is to revoke.

Of course, if South's comment was intended as an ethical attack, that's a real problem. If South's comment was phrased in a way as to imply an ethical attack, it is also a real problem, but maybe a warning to be careful in phrasing in future. It won't be the first "How dare he do that - to *me*?" phrasing I have heard, and it definitely won't be the last.

I do agree that threading the line between "think we were damaged" and "declarer tried to pull one" can be difficult.

[axman]

mycroft, on 2025-December-12, 10:37, said:

*as required by regulations*,

I think that a better view is to say,'as provided by regulations,'.

After all (ultimately) a TD that facilitates people getting along is a good asset and better than one that creates crimes that ought not be.

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2025-December-11, 08:25, said:

I do think that the lead of the ♣Q is an excellent switch for a number of reasons, although I'm not sure I'd find it without a lot of thought.

I had to think about as long as Declarer to figure out why
But even then, I struggle to see when South will unsuccessfully play his partner for the J and why it would have gained.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-December-12, 10:37, said:

It is absolutely valid to point out a potential violation of the proprieties. That can not be consummate with an accusation of cheating, or it would be impossible to get rectification for improper behaviour. Remember, intent is required for a claim of ethics; it is no more unethical to (without intent) fail to meet 73E2 (note: "could have been", not "was", aware) than it is to revoke.

Of course, if South's comment was intended as an ethical attack, that's a real problem. If South's comment was phrased in a way as to imply an ethical attack, it is also a real problem, but maybe a warning to be careful in phrasing in future. It won't be the first "How dare he do that - to *me*?" phrasing I have heard, and it definitely won't be the last.

I fully agree that is legitimate to point out a potential violation of the proprieties.
As a player I have done it many times, with very little success (occasionally the TD did concede something like "this weirdo requests you arrange your quitted tricks as per Law 65, or at least stop twirling them in the air while he is trying to think, maybe you could humour him").
As a TD, I am eager to be called on this basis and ready to defend, but it rarely happens. I also intervene when I witness a violation of the proprieties, but that too is contested by the status quo.

I also agree that there is no obvious dispute about ethics here, nor reason to put words into the mouth of South. Mastery of language is also important in such matters, as you suggest. Just yesterday I was challenged in chat (BBO) by an opponent for a bid of 1NT where the agreement was explained correctly and the bid was 1 HCP out of range, which partner did not expect. The comment was "Liar". "I retain the bid dishonest" would have said the same thing and been much more acceptable.

[mycroft]

Probably better, yes.

I will admit that I am not thrilled with any of the "named" players behaviour, as described by the OP. (note, my first sentence of the previous *strongly* applies here; we have either a second-hand story coloured by one of the players, or a third- or more-hand story coloured by the telling. There *will be* a bias here; and I have no way of knowing which way it lies or how strong it is.)

"Demonstrate a bridge reason" for the pause (before playing the K rather than after the trick) and I'll be happy with East. i.e. "Help me here, you clearly are a better player than I am, show me the problem."

Raise concern, but do not accuse, and I'll be happy with South. i.e. "I'm the referee, here to ensure equity, not the cop, here to issue fines."

Either way, I'll probably give the South hand (only) and the play to high-level players and find out what they would infer declarer needed to think about.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2025-December-11, 15:47, said:

I endorse that not only at international level, but at lowest level too.
I'm sick to the gills of hearing "you shouldn't have punished me mere club players for that".
In what kind of sport can one can play without knowing the rules or break them without tangible consequences?

I agree that a blanket "we don't give PPs to novices" is wrong. But in cases like this, where there's some judgement involved, we must take into account that judgement is related to experience.

For instance, beginners have been known to react to psychic bids as if they're a type of cheating. We generally treat this as a teaching opportunity, not a time for punishment.