[Echognome]

ArtK78, on Oct 25 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

I have never seen a director award a trick in this type of coffeehousing situation, whether the rules say that the trick can be awarded or not.  It just does not happen.

I'm not sure if you will judge it equivalent, but I have been awarded a trick in England when someone hesitated with xx (on an two-way finesse guess).

However, there is precidence in England.

EBU White Book 73.1 said:

Hesitating with two small cards

Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1 makes clear that this is an infraction. The player has failed to be "particularly careful in positions where variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side" and to do so is not usually considered "a demonstrable bridge reason" for the purposes of Law 73F2.

[helene_t]

I'm surprised to hear this. If it's clear that RHO tanked in order to let me think that he had an alternative, and I was damaged, I would expect redress.

I suppose this "at my own risk" thing means that I, as declarer, will not get the benefit of the doubt. I would have to "prove" that RHO was cheating, not something the TD likes to deal with on an ad-hoc basis (unless dealing with novices who may think that cofeehousing is part of the game, and have to learn that that's not the case).

Just some random thoughts, I'm not a TD.

[ceeb]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2007, 06:18 AM, said:

To put it in terms you will like:

If they have stiff Q 90 % of the time they hitch, ... need the director to give you a trick ~90 % of the time for you to show a gain.

I like.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

You are very naive if you think you will actually be awarded a trick after they coffee house. To put it in terms you will like:

If they have stiff Q 90 % of the time they hitch, and Q9 10 % of the time they hitch, your "solution" of playing for the drop and then calling the director if it's stiff Q will need the director to give you a trick ~90 % of the time for you to show a gain. Do you really think you will get a ruling that often when the opponents are just going to say "I played in normal tempo" or "I tried to grab the card and it stuck to the next one"?

Your "solution" is not 100 %, and I'm sure you know that as you actually play bridge at the table and not in some theoretical world.

In real life, given that:
-- I am only calling for the most blatant incidents where it would be hard for perpetrator or their partner to deny break in tempo without being stone cold lying cheaters
-- I have never run into someone with 8000+ MP like the proposed question that condoned & practiced coffeehousing (if a card really stuck, they'd always something like "no problem, a card stuck")
-- there's some reasonable chance the perpetrator will admit that they hitched and were trying to fool me not knowing that this is against the rules (I think maybe at least 50% in a random strat field have little clue as to the proprieties of the game, and even higher among the people who would pull a stunt like this. I think the population of outright cheaters who know the rules & break them anyway is quite low, those who do it mostly think it's simply part of the game & it's never been explained to them otherwise.)
-- I think the hitch is going to be from Q9 way more often than you do

I do believe that it is +EV to play for the drop & go for the ruling otherwise. Maybe I don't have enough practical experience as I can't remember detecting coffeehousing such as this (the couple rulings I saw only read about & heard third hand), I don't try to tune into micro-hitches since I know those are unreliable & I could never get a ruling on it anyway. Do you really notice this a lot (you posted recent story about holding KQ vs. Ax , leading Q and getting a hitch from someone ...)? Do you ever try to get a ruling on this or do you just take matters into your own hands and play them for coffeehousing?

[jdeegan]

Sometimes the very fact that the suspected coffeehouser knows something is 'in the air' is the most important info of all - and, it is NOT UI.

[ArtK78]

I can only recall one time that I was absolutely sure that an opponent hitched as a deliberate attempt to mislead. In this case, I was playing at a local club against a husband and wife pair that I knew were unethical. My partner was declaring the hand, and it was clear to anyone who was paying attention that he was playing all of the side suits to get information about the lie of the cards before trying to decide which opponent had the queen of the fourth suit. When he led towards the KJx of the fourth suit in dummy, the woman hitched noticably before playing small. Besides the fact that no one would ever play anything other than a small card in front of the KJx, the hitch was a noticeable deviation from the tempo of every other trick of the hand. My partner looked at me before playing from dummy, shrugged his shoulders and decided to play her FOR the missing queen. He played the Jack, losing the trick to the Queen.

I let her know what I thought of what she did after the round was over. They filed a complaint with the local unit of the ACBL against me for my comments. After I explained to the Conduct & Ethics committee of the local unit what had happened, I never heard another word about it.