[Vampyr]

dburn, on Jun 2 2010, 10:14 PM, said:

I think that might be the ♣A. I also think that, at least under the guidance recently issued in England, it would be held that although declarer's play was ludicrous, it was not a serious error.

Yes, meant the ♣A. And agree with you and Nigel that the play of the hand does not fall into the category of serious error, according to English guidance. But we do not know where this happened (at any rate, I don't) and the interpretation of the Law might be different there.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Jun 3 2010, 12:36 AM, said:

mink, on Jun 1 2010, 06:49 AM, said:

East has no bridge reason at all to think after the dummy played ♦J. If he felt he needed to think about why ♦J was called, he could have done so after the trick is complete. If he does think before he plays, declarer can and should conclude that East holds the ♦Q. It is also plausible that the thinking was done with Qxx, because East knows that South must have ♦A and there is no point in playing anything but low with Qx.
If there had been no thinking by East, declarer could and should and probably would have played ♦A in trick 1 win 12 tricks without any problem, as ducking the A is only an option in case of a bad ♦ distribution. Therefore I would adjust do 6Hx=.
In this case, the question if the pause during bidding is UI or not becomes irrelevant.

Agree with Mink. Two infractions: In the auction, a double seemingly based on partner's hesitation. In the play, a hesitation with no apparent Bridge reason other than to bamboozle declarer. IMO: The director should concentrate on the second infraction. Even if the director (wrongly) judged declarer's mistakes to be egregious, he should still penalize East.

I don't really understand what you two are talking about. If East were planning to cater for diamonds not breaking, he would need 2 entries to the dummy, which could only be the ♣10 and the ♣Q. So in that sense, he was not damaged by the hesitation.

[mink]

Vampyr, on Jun 3 2010, 02:08 AM, said:

nige1, on Jun 3 2010, 12:36 AM, said:

mink, on Jun 1 2010, 06:49 AM, said:

East has no bridge reason at all to think after the dummy played ♦J. If he felt he needed to think about why ♦J was called, he could have done so after the trick is complete. If he does think before he plays, declarer can and should conclude that East holds the ♦Q. It is also plausible that the thinking was done with Qxx, because East knows that South must have ♦A and there is no point in playing anything but low with Qx.
If there had been no thinking by East, declarer could and should and probably would have played ♦A in trick 1 win 12 tricks without any problem, as ducking the A is only an option in case of a bad ♦ distribution. Therefore I would adjust do 6Hx=.
In this case, the question if the pause during bidding is UI or not becomes irrelevant.

Agree with Mink. Two infractions: In the auction, a double seemingly based on partner's hesitation. In the play, a hesitation with no apparent Bridge reason other than to bamboozle declarer. IMO: The director should concentrate on the second infraction. Even if the director (wrongly) judged declarer's mistakes to be egregious, he should still penalize East.

I don't really understand what you two are talking about. If East were planning to cater for diamonds not breaking, he would need 2 entries to the dummy, which could only be the ♣10 and the ♣Q. So in that sense, he was not damaged by the hesitation.

If declarer assumes that East might have ♦Q98 and West should have an A for his double, it makes sense that he plays low in his hand in the first trick, ruffs a spade, draws trump and ♦A and then plays low to ♣Q - this is the only entry he needs.

Assuming the second hesitation did not take place, maybe he would rather win the first trick with ♦A in his hand, draw trump and ♦ and make 13 tricks. This line is superior in this case because West must have some reason for his ♦ lead, and the most plausible reason I can think of is to assume that there is no entry to the dummy except the ♦ suit and declarer has only a singleton ♦. Assuming that declarers ♦ is singleton is more likely if West has more than one ♦ card. Leading a singleton ♦ is not an option, as South thinks that West has the points and therefore West mus think that it is unlikely that East has ♦A.

Karl

[nige1]

mink, on Jun 3 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

If declarer assumes that East might have ♦Q98 and West should have an A for his double, it makes sense that he plays low in his hand in the first trick, ruffs a spade, draws trump and ♦A and then plays low to ♣Q - this is the only entry he needs.

I agree with mink. Although, with hindsight, declarer may realize that it makes more sense to win ♦A, ♥AKQJT, ♦K. If necessary, he can still ruff out ♦Q and then advance ♣K.