[Jeroen71]

mrdct, on Oct 29 2009, 12:43 AM, said:

You really should've thought this through when dummy came down rather than waiting until declarer actually plays on the suit.  Whilst you had a legitimate problem to think about, you should've known that a long tank before playing the Ace could have the propensity to mislead declarer into thinking that you could not hold the Queen given the usual effectiveness of lulling declarer into thinking a finesse is working requires the play to be in tempo.

As long as he had a legitimate bridge problem, it is irrelevant that the long tank could have the propensity to mislead declarer. Any inferences declarer makes are at his/her own risk (73D).

Quote

I'm inclinded to rule in favour of the non-offending side, but I think a warning is a bit harsh as I don't think you've done anything unethical - just poor technique in not deciding what to do with your your AQ a trick or two beforehand.

As no infraction has been committed, there is no offending side, so ruling in favour of the non-offending side becomes a meaningless phrase.

[bluejak]

duschek, on Oct 29 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

There is a standard position where you hold the KQx behind dummy's ace. Suppose declarer leads a small card off dummy. As I understand the general interpretation of Law 73, after a clear hesitation you cannot play the king to conceal the queen, claiming that your bridge problem was whether to play an honour card at all, because you could then gain from your hesitation misleading declarer.

I am not sure whether the case is fundamentally different when holding the AQ behind dummy's KJ10 as discussed here.

It may be a standard position, but your interpretation is not standard. True some people think playing the king slowly is unethical. Others - including myself - do not.

In the actual case of AQx over dummy's KJT playing the ace slowly is not unethical. It is merely an attempt at the double shot if a declarer tries to claim it is.

[OleBerg]

duschek, on Oct 29 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

There is a standard position where you hold the KQx behind dummy's ace. Suppose declarer leads a small card off dummy. As I understand the general interpretation of Law 73, after a clear hesitation you cannot play the king to conceal the queen, claiming that your bridge problem was whether to play an honour card at all, because you could then gain from your hesitation misleading declarer.

I am not sure whether the case is fundamentally different when holding the AQ behind dummy's KJ10 as discussed here.

To me it seems fundamentally different, as there is a technical difference betweem playing the ace and the queen, but not betweem the king and the queen in your example.

[mrdct]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2009, 10:43 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 28 2009, 05:43 PM, said:

I'm inclinded to rule in favour of the non-offending side, but I think a warning is a bit harsh as I don't think you've done anything unethical - just poor technique in not deciding what to do with your your AQ a trick or two beforehand.

I don't get it. Why does a slow ace deny the queen lol? The ace tends to deny the queen, but if they played a slow ace I would think they would be more likely to have AQ. Why does someone have to play a fast ACE with AQ?! I could see the case that a slow queen is unethical, but a slow ace? Jeez, he is falsecarding and making a highly unusual deceptive play. And he's doing it slowly! Seems pretty normal.

My main point is that defenders can avoid being put in this situation by planning their defence at trick one so they can make these sort of deceptive plays in tempo.

Generally speaking (there are obvious exceptions such as this one) a holding of AQx sitting over KJT is an automatic play of the cheapest honour to win the trick. I would be surprised if on defences with 100 random deals with AQx sitting over KJT there was potential gain in deceptively taking the J with A more than one in a hundred times. Accordingly, declarer is entitled to assume that a holding of AQx will play in tempo in this position; so when the defender tanks and then wins A, this is really only consistent with A to some number of pips.

Playing out of tempo is an infraction that has a propensity to create UI for partner and to inappropriately mislead declarer, hence declarer is imho the non-offender who has innocently and reasonably drawn an inference from the defender's slow play of the A that he doesn't hold the Q.

[bluejak]

That makes no sense. If he plays in tempo, declarer will assume he has not got the queen: if he plays out of tempo you say he is "misled" into thinking he has not got the queen.

The play of the ace denies the queen, though it could be a cunning ploy. This applies equally in or out of tempo. Playing out of tempo is not an infraction since giving UI to partner is not an infraction and declarer has no reason to be misled, since thinking that an out of tempo play means the same as an in-tempo play is not being misled.