[duschek]

Declarer needs 5 tricks from KJ9xx in dummy opposite Axxx in hand. He leads the ace, both defenders following, then leads small towards dummy. After some 10 seconds, LHO follows with the ten. Consequently (?), declarer finesses the jack, losing to the queen.

Your ruling? Could declarer seriously believe that LHO considered which card to play from the QT?

[Cascade]

What is the alternative that they were considering which card to play from "T"?

[bluejak]

Presumably he started with Txx and is wondering whether to play the middle 'x' or the ten.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Oct 19 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

Presumably he started with Txx and is wondering whether to play the middle 'x' or the ten.

and we didnt notice the queen fall from his partner on the first round.

[jallerton]

duschek, on Oct 18 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Declarer needs 5 tricks from KJ9xx in dummy opposite Axxx in hand. He leads the ace, both defenders following, then leads small towards dummy. After some 10 seconds, LHO follows with the ten. Consequently (?), declarer finesses the jack, losing to the queen.

Your ruling? Could declarer seriously believe that LHO considered which card to play from the QT?

Before ruling I ask the player to explain why it took him ten seconds to play the 10.

[duschek]

jallerton, on Oct 18 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

Before ruling I ask the player to explain why it took him ten seconds to play the 10.

LHO was not aware that he spent ten seconds. RHO admitted that LHO took approximately ten seconds to follow with the ten.

[skjaeran]

Unless he missorted his hand, he either had QT or T. With none of these holdings did he have anything at all to think about, and declarer knows that.

[barmar]

Isn't this precisely the type of situation which 73F is targeted at? Even if LHO didn't realize he took a long time to play his singleton, he "could have known" that hesitating would help.

On the other hand, you have to wonder what declarer thought LHO was thinking about. Whether he holds Tx or QTX, there's nothing to think about, you play the T. Holding QTx you might have something to consider on the FIRST trick, contemplating playing the T. But only a novice would think on the 2nd trick.

(Or GIB -- I've frequently seen it help declarer by playing the Q there, I suspect because the way it analyzes hands tells it that declarer will always finesse when it's correct to do so, so it doesn't think it's giving anything away by taking away the guess.)

But no matter how obvious the play with the doubleton is, the fact remains that there's even less to think about with a singleton. Hesitating with a singleton is generally considered the most obvious form of coffeehousing; it's probably given as an example in the Bridge Encyclopedia. The only possible excuse is that you got ahead of yourself and were thinking about the next trick when you should have been following to this trick. But 73F essentially says that if you do this, and declarer makes an incorrect inference as a result, you lose. You picked the wrong time to do your planning of the rest of the defense.

[bluejak]

No, 73F does not say this. If you hesitate with a singleton, and declarer if he has half a brain knows you have a singleton because you hesitated - which is the case here - then there is no reason to adjust.

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

[jdonn]

Bluejak I think you overestimate a lot of novices and even intermediate players here. When they see the hesitation they will automatically assume "not a singleton". It won't even occur to most such players that declarer has just as little bridge reason to hesitate with QT. I think it's asking way too much of most players to assume they realize if the defender hesitates he is much more likely to actually have the singleton.

[bluejak]

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

The same is true if LHO was a novice (or could have been one). Novices need to think about whether to play the queen or ten from QT. They don't need to think about playing the ten from T.

But I would adjust in most cases anyway. (See next post.)

Rik

[Trinidad]

There is an entirely different aspect that everyone seems to overlook. Declarer knows that he started with Axxx in hand. But the defenders don't know that.

There are situations where it is actually better to play the queen from QT if declarer started with Axx. (If this is the trump suit, declarer may decide to ruff a loser in hand, giving you an overruff. If it then turns out that the loser could have been discarded on a side suit that lies well for declarer, the defense has won a trick.)

This is even more true when declarer may have started with Ax. You fake that the suit splits 4-2, unfavorable for declarer, when in fact it is 3-3 which declarer likes.

Rik

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton?

Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause.

I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result.

The only situation I shall accept is if the "offender" apparently wakes up and apologises with words to the effect: "Sorry, I had nothing to think about", we can all temporarily fall asleep.

Sven

[axman]

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 03:07 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton?

Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause.

I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result.





The only situation I shall accept is if the "offender" apparently wakes up and apologises with words to the effect: "Sorry, I had nothing to think about", we can all temporarily fall asleep.

Sven

A long time ago there was a period of several years during which my automatic response to an improper deceptive pause was to say, 'sorry, no problem.'

After consideration, I stopped this practice and am unilaterally opposed to it. The outcome has been that I pay better attention and improper deceptions are quite rare, and to date no such damage has occurred; and should such damage occur the proper thing to do is to adjust.

My views are founded upon the notion that such a disclaimer [no screens] is an improper communication to partner [L73 infraction]. In and of itself sufficient reason. Further, an improper deceptive has already breached L73 and to compound it by further breaching L73 is more than sufficient reason to say nothing during the hand.

[bluejak]

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton?

Presumably he was thinking about something else.

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause.

I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result.

Of course it mentions it, because usually it is clearly deceptive. But that does not mean you adjust when it is not. Law 73F does not require an adjustment when there is no reason to be misled. Just because they give an obvious example does not mean you apply it when the Law does not apply.

It is not a question of leniency: if Law 73F applies, you apply it: if it does not, you do not.

[pran]

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:43 PM, said:

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 02:14 AM, said:

If the opening post had said declarer was a novice then I agree, Law 73F applies and I would adjust.

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton?

Presumably he was thinking about something else.

pran, on Oct 21 2009, 09:07 AM, said:

Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause.

I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result.

Of course it mentions it, because usually it is clearly deceptive. But that does not mean you adjust when it is not. Law 73F does not require an adjustment when there is no reason to be misled. Just because they give an obvious example does not mean you apply it when the Law does not apply.

It is not a question of leniency: if Law 73F applies, you apply it: if it does not, you do not.

What makes you consider the hesitation in this case to be not clearly deceptive?

I cannot see any bridge reason for the hesitation in this case, and even beginners are told in one of their very first lessons that hesitating with a singleton is never acceptable. The player had every reason to suspect that declarer could be deceived and damaged by the hesitation in case he needed to locate an outstanding Queen.

And why was there no reason for declarer to be misled in this case?

Maybe I have overlooked something but I cannot see how declarer should have seen that his LHO had nothing to consider and hesitated for no legal reason at all.

To me this is an obvious case for both L73D2 and L73F, and I adjust with no hesitation.

I am shocked over your statement: "Presumably he was thinking about something else.". Is this to be some excuse?

I don't know how you rule in England, but I feel sure that in Norway this statement would never be accepted as a reason to avoid L73 rectification (and possible PP) unless presented at the latest together with playing the singleton.

Sven

[gordontd]

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

In the original post it clearly did mislead

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

That is most certainly true. If partner has shown out, you can hesitate for hours, as far as I am concerned.

But in this case, the hesitation does mislead. If you hold QT in front of KJ in dummy there are situations where it is wrong to play the 10 and correct to play the queen. It may even be so right that declarer might decide to duck your queen!

In these situations, the Hideous Hog would treat the play of the 10 with disdain. And of course the Rueful Rabbit would play the queen and beat the contract because he had missorted his hand. Naturally, he would apologize to his partner.

If you only hold the 10, there is only one correct play. All other plays are called revokes.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on Oct 21 2009, 10:53 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 21 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

Hesitating with a singleton is not illegal if it cannot mislead.

That is most certainly true. If partner has shown out, you can hesitate for hours, as far as I am concerned.

I actually once, when I was still young, in a club game in the next village, had an opponent call the TD on me when I "thought with a singleton".

The fact is that declarer played from his hand and my partner unexpectedly showed out in that trick. I realized that I could not mislead declarer and I started to slow down the play because I needed to process the information that declarer had conceiled a long suit in the bidding. While I was playing the card, I was reconstructing the distribution and I was thinking why declarer could have bid the way he did. There was no doubt that this card came slower than the card in the previous trick. But there wasn't really a pause. I had just started to slow down the pace of the play as my brain was doing hard labor.

Now, declarer calls the TD and before the TD arrives he stands up from his chair and yells out to the whole room that I thought with a singleton. (Now my partner, who didn't know or even expect that I was playing a singleton also knew that declarer's side suit was longer than the suit he had bid. ) He makes quite a scene. The TD doesn't seem to realize that I couldn't have misled declarer. (Declarer obviously knew that I held a singleton. After all, he was yelling it through the room. And, at that time, the trick with my singleton was still lying face open on the table.) The TD tells declarer to continue and that he will adjust if he had been damaged.

After the round, I get a sermon about hesitating with a singleton. The TD still didn't get what had been going on. I just listen to the sermon, like I used to do in church when I was a boy. The opponents in the next rounds look at me as if I suffer from lepra. I get a lecture on thinking with singletons just about every round, including one saying that it gives unauthorized information to partner (!?). By the last round I feel pretty sick.

At the end of the evening, when we already have our coats on, the best player at the club, an older man who also frequently played at my home club, comes to me and asks what the yelling was all about. I explain to him what had happened and he says out loud (for the whole club to hear) with a broad smile: "Rik, I was 100% sure that if YOU would ever think with a singleton you must have a legitimate bridge reason for it. I was just curious what it could be." He puts his arm around my shoulder and whispers: "I can't say the same thing for your opponent. And, oh, between you and me, I know that their convention card says that they play standard with some gadgets. But they have been playing canapé for years. None of the palookas at this club has ever figured that out. He was probably just irritated that you could count to 13 and found out the very first time you played against them."

There was about 2 ft (60 cm) of snow lying outside, but on the inside I felt nice and warm.

Rik