[Hanoi5]

Declarer's trump suit is:

JTxxx

AK9x

He starts with the Jack, small, Ace and the defender seems to be deciding what to play and then produces a small spade. Declarer decides to play for the drop (3-1 could be more likely on the bidding). The defender now discards.

- What would a Director do in this scenario when called by declarer?
- What would be an extenuating circumstance? (For example, the defender is not a good player, the defender is a beginner, the defender thought he was void in spades and was trying to decide what to discard when s/he found the spade)
- Should a defender who thought s/he was void and then found a card say something like 'Sorry, nothing to think about' or maybe 'Is it my turn? Sorry'

[Cyberyeti]

Defender never has anything to think about here, declarer knows that, no adjustment, warn the defender what might happen if he might have had something to think about.

[Hanoi5]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-29, 12:34, said:

Defender never has anything to think about here, declarer knows that, no adjustment, warn the defender what might happen if he might have had something to think about.

Exactly. If the defender doesn't have anything to think, why would s/he think? You don't think unless you have a choice of plays, isn't that an assumption declarer can take (at his own risk, I suppose, but notheless it is there).

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-29, 12:34, said:

Defender never has anything to think about here, declarer knows that, no adjustment, warn the defender what might happen if he might have had something to think about.

This is not true, eg defender might be trying to decide what suit preference signal to give. I would definitely adjust.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2016-September-29, 13:55, said:

This is not true, eg defender might be trying to decide what suit preference signal to give. I would definitely adjust.

Agree with Vampyr.

A defender might pause momentarily, to recall partnership trump agreements (if any). Many defenders peter with 3 trumps. Some play Vinje shape signals. A few use Smith peters, even at suit contracts.

For a defender with a singleton, however, options should be limited.

Some players (not all beginners) believe that hesitating with singleton is a cunning and legitimate bluff. Here damage is obvious. If you are not damaged, however, you should probably still call the director in the hope that he'll educate the hesitater

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2016-September-29, 13:55, said:

This is not true, eg defender might be trying to decide what suit preference signal to give. I would definitely adjust.

The defender is thinking about whether to play Q from Qx to show a higher-ranking suit??

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2016-September-29, 14:38, said:

The defender is thinking about whether to play Q from Qx to show a higher-ranking suit??

It depends on how the trump suit was played. Perhaps for lack of entries the other top trump was played from hand.

[Kaitlyn S]

My own personal feeling is that you would never adjust unless declarer could give a legitimate reason why he would have gone against the odds and finessed. Not that I would adjust anyway, but declarer is unlikely to have finessed without a reason. Let's see how much credibility that reason has in appeal.

And I agree, the person who has the singleton should be educated.

[nige1]

RMB1, on 2016-September-29, 14:38, said:

The defender is thinking about whether to play Q from Qx to show a higher-ranking suit??

Or (more likely) deciding which pip to play from Qxx or doubleton xx.

As long as LHO has a choice in the suit, there's no reason for declarer, missing Qxxx, to risk re-entering dummy, to finesse against RHO.

The drop/finesse decision is close; but
LHO's hesitation with a singleton deprives declarer of the opportunity to make the winning choice.

Once again, It's instructive to players who might regard this as a simple application of the rules, that top directors take an unexpected view that seems to condone and encourage putative infractions.

[Cyberyeti]

Unless declarer is in dummy really early and dummy is very short of entries, he can rule out any chance of LHO having anything to think about. I would consider adjusting only if this is the case.

I first saw this ruling with Kx/AJxxxxx with the singleton played behind the AJ slowly, and the ruling was that he couldn't have anything to think about with Qx or x.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-29, 16:53, said:

I first saw this ruling with Kx/AJxxxxx with the singleton played behind the AJ slowly, and the ruling was that he couldn't have anything to think about with Qx or x.

That seems different to me. Nevetheless, assuming that

• Declarer leads a small card from dummy's AJxxxxx and
• As declarer's RHO, you hold Qx and
• You haven't peeked or otherwise worked out declarer's actual holding

Then you have something to think about.

e.g. If declarer has singleton ten, then you must rise with the queen or lose your trick
e.g. If declarer has doubleton ten, you may need to rise with the queen in order to lead through declarer.

With a singleton, however, you have nothing to think about -- and that is the point of this thread

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2016-September-29, 17:31, said:

That seems different to me. Nevetheless, assuming that

• Declarer leads a small card from dummy's AJxxxxx and
• As declarer's RHO, you hold Qx and
• You haven't peeked or otherwise worked out declarer's actual holding

Then you have something to think about.

e.g. if declarer has singleton ten, then you must rise with the queen or lose your trick
Even if declarer has doubleton ten, you may need to rise with the queen in order to lead through declarer.

With a singleton, however, I concede you have nothing to think about -- and that is the point of this thread

Declarer had opened 1N so was known to hold 2, also he led the K not to it. The contract was 6N so leading through was not likely to be important

[nige1]

Just for fun...
It depends on context but...
When declarer cashes an Ace,
LHO shouldn't automatically play low with doubleton queen.
Defenders have triumphed in high level play on deals like this.
6N would be better but South reaches 6♠.
You lead ♣Q won by declarer's ♣A.
When declarer next cashes ♠A,
you follow with the ♠Q!
... preferably, in tempo
Believing this might be a singleton,
declarer decides to lead the next ♠ from dummy.
He attempts to cross to dummy's ♥A
but you ruff and lead a ♣ for partner to ruff

---

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-29, 18:09, said:

Declarer had opened 1N so was known to hold 2, also he led the K not to it. The contract was 6N so leading through was not likely to be important

The correct play with Qx depends on context. The correct signal with Qxx or xx also depends on context.

Ideally a player should plan the play so that he can maintain constant tempo; but when he has a choice of plays, even if the correct answer is obvious, he might be forgiven for sometimes taking an extra second or two to assess the context and decide on his best action.

Except, perhaps, at trick one, however, he shouldn't think about the play of a singleton.

Cyberyeti's example is different from the OP. But even in that case, if you appear to have a choice of play when declarer cashes the king, then declarer will play you for Qxx, Qx or xx. The inferential count might also effect his play in other suits. Declarer certainly won't waste time, considering a finesse in this suit.

Of course, if directors judge that it's permissible to hesitate with a singleton, in such situations, then all bets are off.

This post has been edited by nige1: 2016-September-30, 06:16

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2016-September-29, 19:51, said:

The correct play with Qx depends on context. The correct signal with Qxx or xx also depends on context. Ideally a player should plan the play so that he can maintain constant tempo but he might be forgiven for sometimes taking a second or two to assess the context to decide on his best action.

Except at trick one, however, he shouldn't think about the play of a singleton.

Conceivably, CyberYeti's example could be the exception to this general rule but in that case it's of doubtful relevance to the OP problem

It's the exact same situation as the original problem if we could see all 4 hands and there were plenty of entries to dummy, one of which is risk free, you play J to the K, cross to dummy, lead the 10 and see a small card ruling out xx on the left, there is no cost in doing this.

[weejonnie]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-30, 02:36, said:

It's the exact same situation as the original problem if we could see all 4 hands and there were plenty of entries to dummy, one of which is risk free, you play J to the K, cross to dummy, lead the 10 and see a small card ruling out xx on the left, there is no cost in doing this.

And if LHO has QXX you have no winning action anyway!

[sfi]

Vampyr, on 2016-September-29, 14:59, said:

It depends on how the trump suit was played. Perhaps for lack of entries the other top trump was played from hand.

This would seem to be the most likely cause of damage. If dummy only has one entry and declarer has two finesse options, then the hesitation may have steered them away from the winning line. I don't see a case for adjusting based solely on the trump suit, but the entire hand may be a different matter.

[mcphee]

No fumble no foul, a couple of seconds in no way should be viewed as an attempt to deceive.

[nige1]

sfi, on 2016-September-30, 04:16, said:

This would seem to be the most likely cause of damage. If dummy only has one entry and declarer has two finesse options, then the hesitation may have steered them away from the winning line. I don't see a case for adjusting based solely on the trump suit, but the entire hand may be a different matter.

I feel that sfi's opinion is closer to Vampyr's and mine.

But I still sympathise with Hanoi5.

I don't understand why but I accept that I'm wrong again about how directors interpret the rules.

I'm grateful, however, to BBO, blackshoe, gordontd, trinidad, pran, and others for providing ordinary players with expert legal advice on these common situations.

Thank you all.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2016-September-29, 14:38, said:

The defender is thinking about whether to play Q from Qx to show a higher-ranking suit??

No, the defender is thinking about whether to play the queen to win the trick, but then notices that declarer has played the ace, so plays low. After a couple of seconds just to "make assurance double sure" as the bard said. "Thou shalt not live", would be my ruling as TD if I thought the defender had tried this with a singleton.

Automatic adjustment whenever someone hesitates with a singleton (in this situation), and gains, as the White Bible tells us.