|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
daponte  5 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Dear forum
I have two questions regarding two cases of hesitation before play during a board. 1. Declarer (or defender, anyone with concealed cards) holds KQx in a suit and w3hen in turn after obviously break in tempo he plays the K. We can make the case more complex if we give declarer AKJx in a suit and after thinking when in turn he plays the A. (of course defence takes the other TOUCHING honor as placed in partners hand and plays accordingly and as happening in that cases the only one who could (if possibly) benefit from such an action is the player who performed it. Another option in defence would of course lead to a better result for the defenders. I hope we all agry to the unethical point of the situation (if not please state) but when it comes to the result will this be changed for the favor of the defenders who could have been mislead of the hesitation and the play? To state it as defender you hold QJx in a suit, declarer makes the first finesse in this suit you hesitate with this kind of holding (QJx) and finally you play the Q. Declarer of course finesses now again assuming your partner has the J and voila here comes the J from the "thinker". Are there any obsections for adjusting the score or for giving the declarer the position of the J? And according to the law "if the purpose is to misleading the opponents" the case should be obvious. WHAT OTHER purpose could there be for such a move after hesitation? Now to the 2nd question. 2. As defnder you hold KJx in a suit playing eg 3nt and declarer makes a finesse of the 10 (x from dummy, x from partner, 10 from declarer and now your turn). You think (obviously break in tempo to consider the situation) and you assume the only way to set the contract is the one of making the declarer believe partner has the J and to declare in a kind of avoidance from your partner taking the lead and so you play the K. Of course the K is not equal as the J (referring to the law that states (i think) from equal plays the locical should have been made). Trully things happen as you imagined declarer finesses partner for the J (maybe he would have done it either for the K if you played the J in first trick but does it make any difference?), you win and set the contract. You creatyed a losing option and maybe declare could try other plans (playing a suit hoping for a favorable break 3-3 but being "sure" for the position of the J he refinessed. Now what? Do we adjust? I am in the direction that after hesitation from two (or more) EQUAL cards you have to play (ethics if not law) the logical one, the smallest IF you decide to play one of them. Is that really so according to the laws? Is that situation "covered" by the laws? And in the 2nd case i think defender must be awarded rather than punished for his play because KJ are NOT equal cards and he performed a 'gambit" which could easily not work for his favor or anyway he has the "demonstrated bridge reason" to think and when it comes to play the 2 cards are not equal. Please clarify the situation if possible Thank you in advanced Peter |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
If a player thinks for a time, holding KQx, and then plays an honour, this is no rule or Law or anything else that says he should play one honour rather than the other. The choice of a card at any time is a legitimate way of deceiving people.
What is not permitted is to think for a time when he has no decision to make. So long as he has a legitimate bridge reason, he may think for a time, and then play any card he feels is suitable. If an opponent misreads what he was hesitating about then that is unfortunate for that opponent: the Law says he takes inferences "at his own risk" and that refers to inferences where the person taking them has misguessed what the hesitator's problem was. Similarly, if he holds KJx, and thinks for a time before deciding to play the king, it is difficult to see anything wrong with that. He had a valid reason for thinking presumably - deciding whether to play a deliberately high card is a valid reason. However, that does not mean he may always think without opponents getting any redress. If with KQx he is only considering whether to play the K or the Q that is not a valid bridge reason, and an opponent could get redress if he concluded something else from this think. But it would not make any difference whether he played the K or the Q after his spurious think.
|
|
daponte 5 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
I think the case of KJx is clear.
But regarding KQx, or even worse QJx how can we get into one peoples mind? And what else rather than misleading could be to play the Q after some hesitation? Of course we could argue that the defender could hold up and in this case losing his trick but that could not be the case because with his hesitation he already has to have a reason for that (that means a honor, he "is not allowed" to hesitate with xxx) and with the play of the Q he is rather trying to mislead on purpose regarding the position of the J. Isnt then the play of the Q a violation? This (I think) is the obvious case. But there are lot of other positions too. Say as declarer you could hold up playing last on the lead with KQx in order to cut communications but isn't the play of the K after not ducking and hesitating highly misleading? Isnt there a law (seventysomething I think) in which it quotes that after a hesitation the player should do the logical alternative between two? Is Q or K equal regarding "logical"? Thank you for the answer Peter |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
You seem to have some rule in mind that does not exist.
If I hold KQx in what way is it misleading to play the king slowly rather than the queen slowly? it is difficult to see a difference. To play a card slowly is a violation if you have no decision to make. To play a particular card rather than another card slowly is not a violation. If you are declarer and you consider before playing from KQx I cannot see why you think there is a rule that you must play one rather than the other. Furthermore I can assure you there is no such rule.
|
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Whilst I understand that it's completely irrelevant which card you play in this situation, I cannot understand how, if redress is to be given, you can prove damage, if you are only allowed to take inferences "at your own risk"?
The question remains if undue hesitation is made and there is no legitimate bridge reason for it, what should the player do? If the player in question does not have a legitimate bridge reason, why is he hesitating? I can certainly sympathise with daponte's conclusion that the reason for the hesitation is to "introduce confusion". Good players try not to hesitate and should be prepared in advance if for example, dummy has AJ9x and they are sitting under it with KQx. Playing an honor after a long hesitation is bound to make declarer wonder. If he changes his line of play based on the possible "inference" that defender has a doubleton honor, how does he prove damage, if he subsequently goes down? |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
First of all, players are not required to prove anything. As with every other judgement decision a player explains the problem to the TD [or Appeals Committee] and he decides whether he believes a player has been damaged.
 I am not disagreeing with the principle that a hesitation may sow confusion. Of course, and then it gets ruled back.  All I disagreed with is whether it makes a difference what card is played after a hesitation.  In the example you give he explains the suituation to the Director and lets him consult, consider, decide and rule. 
|
|
daponte 5 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: greece
well i ve done some homework, because i thought for all this time that at least from "ethics" side I could be right and now that I read "bluejacks" answer I am in doubt again. I ve found an appeal from the 42nd Generali Europ Championships and after the appeal and the ruling the committee states: (which I think is not the direction of bluejack who as I understand frees the defender (or declarer) from any obligation and we come to the very hard to tell "prove" situation which is always hard to tell (we cannot be into someone elses mind and we could argue a lot). The link where to find the appeal and the decision is http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/ebc95.html appeal 11 and for those who dont want to follow the link the case is about KQx sitting after AJxx, 108xx in dummy and declarer goes for the double fin and KQx after agreed hesitation puts the K and declarer misjudges the position of the Q. "The committee: The committee established, that since East had at least two main possibilities in his defense (he could play one of the honors or the 9), he would also have every right to think for as long as he pleased. However, when he decided to play an honor, he should have known that by choosing the "abnormal" alternative, he would (inadvertently) violate the ethic code, as this play was bound to mislead South. In situations of this kind, East should always play the "natural" card, the Queen, which gives the declarer a real choice instead of an imaginative misleading one" "Committee's note: The committee was confident that it was not East's intention to coffee-house South. The EBL wants the highest possible standard of ethical conduct to be followed in these championships. Therefore, after a hesitation, players are advised to do the "normal" thing rather than the "abnormal", whenever there is a choice between the two. " The law I am referring is 73F2 73F2 "Player Injured by Illegal Deception if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score." This "could have known" is the hard to tell thing but in my mind what other purpose than "work for his benefit" does the Higher from Equal honors help? And the committe's advice does stand? Or it depends anytime from the committee, the side who appeals and so on? Shouldn't we at least advise the players to follow the committes direction in order to avoid getting to the "could have known" situation? Or should we tell the declarers or defenders that any inference is drawn at own risk and so be it, we can never proof whats in a players mind... Thank you for the answers and waiting for others too  Peter Daponte |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Just because one Committee makes one very doubtful decision at one time does not mean that anyone else is bound by that decision. Personally, I think the decision just wrong.
If you read a high-level bridge book it will tell you that with KQx you should win the trick randomly. This Committee tells us there is a natural card to play - all other authorities say there is not. Which shoudl we believe? At the time the player thought he had no decision because he was not going to duck holding KQx. Therefore his hesitation was misleading to declarer and it was right to adjust. But it would have been just as right to adjust if he had won with the queen after the hesitation! The hesitation was misleading, not the choice of card. I cannot believe that we should recommend that we follow one doubtful decision and ignore the instructions from many authorities over the years.
|
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
daponte has chosen this hand to support his case, but I don't believe it does:
The contract was 3NT by South and West led a small diamond. South took this in hand with the ten and played another diamond to dummy's Jack. He then played the club 3 off the board and this was when the hesitation took place. East eventually played the club King. South later ran the club 10 losing to East's queen and ended up down three. The TD ruled damage owing to the hesitation and adjusted to down one. The Appeals Committee upheld his decision. I agree with bluejak that this was not right, but for a slightly different reason. Given declarer's unusual play, East was taken off guard and did have something to think about. Playing the Queen would have disclosed the location of the King. It perhaps took East a few seconds to work this out. The committee however referred to this play as the "abnormal alternative" and that he should have played the queen. I don't believe this is the same situation as the one where declarer plays clubs the "normal" way by leading from his own hand. This is quite different as then the play of the Queen or King is irrelevant (as bluejak states). In this case, declarer could well take the view that a hesitation followed by the play of the King indicated that the defender was considering whether to take the trick now or hold up. The natural inference would be that the Queen was in the other hand. Without the hesitation however, no such inference would present itself, whichever card was played. In conclusion, I wonder whether, if hesitation and possible damage occurs, the choice of card played from equals depends on whether you play towards or away from the critical holding. |
AQ95
2
AQJ8
AJ73|
daponte 5 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: greece
dear forum I found this hand as one that had to do with "expert" rulings from an "expert" tournament. The critical point is the Hesitation. I obviously agree that from KQx expert books say that you should win the trick randomly as to mislead (without break in tempo) the declarer / defender whatever. I hardly believe there is a book that states that AFTER hesitation KQx should take the trick randomly. HESITATION is the point. And after that please someone tell me what other purpose other than misleading the opponents could be to play the top of EQUAL honors. Any OTHER reason? According to bluejak hesitate or not, you could choose anything from both. (except proven otherwise). Shouldnt the Hesitation (the agreed hesitation), if only from 'ethical' point of view, "advise" you not to mislead the opps? I mean you take an advantage over the opps and this is just only because of your hesitation, if there wouldnt exist one you would not get such an advantage. Anyway that doesnt seem "fair" to me if not covered by the "ethical" if not the "written" laws. I think bluejak made his point clear. Any other opinions? Thank you PS please bergid could you pls tell me how to greate such a perfect diagramm? |
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
If you click on the link at the top of the page that says "Posting Hints", it explains there how to use the "pre" tag to set out hands.
|
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Yes, I agree with you this is ethically wrong. All I was suggesting in my last post, was that the example you chose didn't quite illustrate your point. It would have done so if declarer had initiated clubs from his own hand instead of dummy and the play had gone the same way. In that case, I believe there would be a strong case for supposing the defender was intending to deliberately mislead declarer. I think what you are trying to say (and I am right with you here) is that having hesitated for whatever reason (possibly unrelated to the hand), one should do the "honorable thing" and play the lower of touching honors, so as not to attract the suspicion of unethical play. If this happened to me, I would say "Sorry, wasn't thinking about this trick" or words to that effect (if I had actually been distracted). |
|
daponte 5 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: greece
I agree with you bergid that in the chosen example the play (off the table) isnt the best position / situation for the defender and he could easily become surprised and hesitate but was the one I found regarding appeals, committees and so on and even in this situation I welcomed the decision of the committee and i agree totally with the guideline the committee states. In every day bridge "worse" things happen, as is QJx after the fin position, hesitating and then the Q. Demonstarble bridge reason for the defender as arguing to duck and create an impression that his honors are still protected in order to refinisse. For me the only reason was confusing in an "unethical" way. But I just wanted to know if we could / should extend this to other obviously misleading plays and regard them as only causing confusion and advise players not to do them. eg as the ultimate position as declarer holding AKJx, playing last on lead and after agreed long hesitation as fourth to play you take with the A, in order to create the impression of being weak in the suit and getting a return to this suit from the safe hand (left hand opp). Such an advanced good declarer play (as seen in the books) in tempo, should maybe after hesitation become unavailable? (the same exists even playing in second position, as happened to me in real life in a 1NT contract and misjudged the whole position of the K which of course costed some overtricks and a bad pairs score. Director adjusted "quite" but as that happens from time to time i started a survey to see the point of views in general) Thank you for the answers till now could use some more  PS. Thank you bergid for the card layout advice |
|
AlanW Reply |
It seems to me that we can all agree that if declarer leads towards AJ10x in dummy and you are sitting over dummy, you should win the trick without hesitating with whichever card you feel like. If you hesitate, it does not matter in the slightest which card you play since you have misled declarer either way.
I also think if declarer leads way from AJxx on the table and you have KQxx you may need to thing whether to go in with an honour or not. If you decide you do want to, I think it still doesn't matter which you play since you are not misleading declarer - you had a legitimate bridge reason to think, and declarer takes a view on what that reason was at his own peril. Incidentally, though it may be more relevant when declarer leads towards AJ in his own hand, different people seem to have different standard practices about whether they play the lower or higher of touching honours in second seat, anyway. |
|
bergid 35 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Agreed, this is a blatant example, though a good player might not be taken in by it. It seems to me that there are situations in bridge, which while not strictly unethical as defined by the Laws, are "grey areas" and we have to live with them and just be wary of players who appear to be indulging in those practices. Personally, I don't like to call the director over situations involving hesitations in the play - it's time consuming and can sometimes be somewhat confrontational - it's never much fun!  |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:37:52 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status