[paulg]

Scoring: IMP

West North East South
         3♦  Pass(H)  6♥
Dbl  All pass

Agreed hesitation prior to East's first pass.

---

West led the two of diamonds. After some thought declarer played the jack of diamonds from dummy and East followed slowly with the eight of diamonds.

Declarer won the trick in dummy and ruffed a spade, East playing the ace of spades. He now played five rounds of trumps, pitching two spades, two diamonds and one club.

He then cashed the ace of diamonds and tried to cross to dummy using the queen of clubs through the 'known' ace that West must have for his double.

Declarer claimed that the double is clearly based on unauthorised information from the hesitation over the opening bid. Further that the double has caused him to misplay the hand. It was also suggested that the opening lead could also be based on UI from the pass (doubling with no tricks and then choosing a 'tricky' lead).

On the other hand, declarer has played the hand very poorly. Pitching the third club from dummy is not necessary and not doing so would have saved the day (as declarer should lead the king of clubs from hand rather than trying to cross to the queen). Also if you are going to rely on the ace of clubs to be well placed, then winning the diamond lead in hand seems very clear too.

How do you rule?

I was kibitzing, not playing, a practice match for the European Championships. The players at this table were international trialists, luckily not the teams, but they would all describe themselves as experts and expect to be 'dealt' with as if playing at a major international championship.

[pran]

cardsharp, on May 31 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ J54 ♥   ♦ KJT7654 ♣ QT5 ♠ KT32 ♥ 97654 ♦ Q2 ♣ J9 ♠ AQ9876 ♥ 2 ♦ 98 ♣ A876 ♠   ♥ AKQJT83 ♦ A3 ♣ K432

West North East South          3♦  Pass(H)  6♥ Dbl  All pass Agreed hesitation prior to East's first pass.

West led the two of diamonds. After some thought declarer played the jack of diamonds from dummy and East followed slowly with the eight of diamonds.

Declarer won the trick in dummy and ruffed a spade, East playing the ace of spades. He now played five rounds of trumps, pitching two spades, two diamonds and one club.

He then cashed the ace of diamonds and tried to cross to dummy using the queen of clubs through the 'known' ace that West must have for his double.

Declarer claimed that the double is clearly based on unauthorised information from the hesitation over the opening bid. Further that the double has caused him to misplay the hand. It was also suggested that the opening lead could also be based on UI from the pass (doubling with no tricks and then choosing a 'tricky' lead).

On the other hand, declarer has played the hand very poorly. Pitching the third club from dummy is not necessary and not doing so would have saved the day (as declarer should lead the king of clubs from hand rather than trying to cross to the queen). Also if you are going to rely on the ace of clubs to be well placed, then winning the diamond lead in hand seems very clear too.

How do you rule?

I was kibitzing, not playing, a practice match for the European Championships. The players at this table were international trialists, luckily not the teams, but they would all describe themselves as experts and expect to be 'dealt' with as if playing at a major international championship.

Questions:
1: Was the hesitation by East over the opening bid longer than the ten seconds he is entitled to in this position? (And was STOP used by North?)
2: Was the slow play by East in trick 1 excessive considering the pause he is entitled to in trick 1?

I don't buy the argument that West "must" have the AC for his double and am reluctant to make any adjustment here.

[paulg]

pran, on May 31 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

Questions:
1: Was the hesitation by East over the opening bid longer than the ten seconds he is entitled to in this position? (And was STOP used by North?)
2: Was the slow play by East in trick 1 excessive considering the pause he is entitled to in trick 1?

I don't buy the argument that West "must" have the AC for his double and am reluctant to make any adjustment here.

1. It was actually played with screens, but the hesitation was noticeable on the other side. I guess it was around a minute before the board came through.

2. Yes. Declarer did think for some considerable time (a little surprising considering his subsequent play). It seemed like East was asleep at this point.

I was sitting behind declarer and could not see East, but I was very surprised that he needed to think at all given declarer's pause. Surely declarer was only playing the ten or king of diamonds.

I guess he was still wondering how partner could have doubled when he had two aces, so this hesitation was probably unrelated to the diamond suit.

[campboy]

Well, it sounds like West has UI that East has some values. Does that suggest double (over pass), and is pass an LA? I would think so.

How does declarer reckon his play would have changed had there been no double? I am tempted to simply adjust to 6♥-1 not doubled, on the basis that i don't see declarer getting it right without the double. But perhaps he can convince me.

[pran]

cardsharp, on May 31 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

pran, on May 31 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

Questions:
1: Was the hesitation by East over the opening bid longer than the ten seconds he is entitled to in this position? (And was STOP used by North?)
2: Was the slow play by East in trick 1 excessive considering the pause he is entitled to in trick 1?

I don't buy the argument that West "must" have the AC for his double and am reluctant to make any adjustment here.

1. It was actually played with screens, but the hesitation was noticeable on the other side. I guess it was around a minute before the board came through.

2. Yes. Declarer did think for some considerable time (a little surprising considering his subsequent play). It seemed like East was asleep at this point.

I was sitting behind declarer and could not see East, but I was very surprised that he needed to think at all given declarer's pause. Surely declarer was only playing the ten or king of diamonds.

I guess he was still wondering how partner could have doubled when he had two aces, so this hesitation was probably unrelated to the diamond suit.

Sorry, I am confused.

Assuming a standard screen setup with South and West on the same side South could not see East's actions or manners.

As North was the dealer how could South tell the timing of the first two calls in the auction? What if 50 seconds of that one minute was because North and East exchanged information relevant to their auction?

And how could it seem to South like East was asleep before playing to trick 1?

I don't get it.

[pran]

campboy, on May 31 2010, 12:51 PM, said:

Well, it sounds like West has UI that East has some values. Does that suggest double (over pass), and is pass an LA? I would think so.

How does declarer reckon his play would have changed had there been no double? I am tempted to simply adjust to 6♥-1 not doubled, on the basis that i don't see declarer getting it right without the double. But perhaps he can convince me.

What UI does West have behind screens?

[paulg]

pran, on May 31 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Sorry, I am confused.

Assuming a standard screen setup with South and West on the same side South could not see East's actions or manners.

As North was the dealer how could South tell the timing of the first two calls in the auction? What if 50 seconds of that one minute was because North and East exchanged information relevant to their auction?

That might be true of some auctions, but less likely for a natural 3♦ opener.

Quote

And how could it seem to South like East was asleep before playing to trick 1?

It cannot. South can only see that East is taking an extended time to play to trick 1. Some may infer that the only time that this could happen is when East holds the queen of diamonds and is wondering if his partner had underled the ace.

[blackshoe]

1. It is trick 1. East is entitled to time to think about the whole hand.
2. I thought the screen is removed after the auction. Am I mistaken?

[pran]

cardsharp, on May 31 2010, 03:23 PM, said:

pran, on May 31 2010, 01:01 PM, said:

Sorry, I am confused.

Assuming a standard screen setup with South and West on the same side South could not see East's actions or manners.

As North was the dealer how could South tell the timing of the first two calls in the auction? What if 50 seconds of that one minute was because North and East exchanged information relevant to their auction?

That might be true of some auctions, but less likely for a natural 3♦ opener.

Quote

And how could it seem to South like East was asleep before playing to trick 1?

It cannot. South can only see that East is taking an extended time to play to trick 1. Some may infer that the only time that this could happen is when East holds the queen of diamonds and is wondering if his partner had underled the ace.

The point is that with screens you don't know what is going on at the other side, and whatever inference you try to make is at your own risk.

Unless of course there is solid evidence of some improper action by the opponent on the other side of the screen.

South has little ground for assuming at what time during the alleged minute span North actually made his opening bid and how long pause East used for his bid.

East is slightly more vulnerable for his delay in playing to trick 1, but he may still have had a perfect reason for considering the contract and his strategy, including the question of why declarer played the jack to the lead. (He could hardly value that before the play from Dummy had been made.)

[mink]

pran, on May 31 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

East is slightly more vulnerable for his delay in playing to trick 1, but he may still have had a perfect reason for considering the contract and his strategy, including the question of why declarer played the jack to the lead. (He could hardly value that before the play from Dummy had been made.)

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.

Karl

[mink]

Well, thinking a little more about it, there is also no point for East to think with Qxx. So his thinking is totally pointless in any case. But I doubt declarer should be blamed for not noticing this.

Karl

[paulg]

mink, on Jun 1 2010, 01:02 PM, said:

Well, thinking a little more about it, there is also no point for East to think with Qxx. So his thinking is totally pointless in any case. But I doubt declarer should be blamed for not noticing this.

Karl

On the other hand, it seems pretty pointless for declarer not to play the ace of diamonds on the first trick.

[axman]

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

pran, on May 31 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

East is slightly more vulnerable for his delay in playing to trick 1, but he may still have had a perfect reason for considering the contract and his strategy, including the question of why declarer played the jack to the lead. (He could hardly value that before the play from Dummy had been made.)

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.

Karl

It seems like a good idea to point out that it is variation in manner that creates problems concerning improper deception as well as UI. And given that this is T1 there is the expectation that players first take the time needed to plan so as to protect themselves from assertions of creating UI or improper deception.

If the E player normally takes some [say like amount of time at his turn at T1] time then to play hastily violates L73A.

THere has been some suggestion* that declarer is entitled to wear out the defense since they are required to expend great amount of brainpower over lengthy periods of time thinking about [possibly] nothing- accomplishing this by taking great lengths of time himself. This was referred to putting E to sleep. Well, it is misguided to believe that declarer having bored his opponents into distraction should be entitled to benefit from an accusation of improper deception to which he directly caused.

* and counter suggestion

I am wholly sympathetic to declarer taking considerable time at T1. In that position I would expect to take at least three minutres myself since the position could require [a] the danger of blocking the Ds or [b] the danger of not blocking the Ds. As the length of pause and the action taken provide inferences to E as to the position of the cards and his choice of card to T1 may be critical to W, declarer has every expectation that E should take some time after dummy plays.

imo, given the facts presented* no one has done anything wrong here except that declarer has cried foul.

* It seems very ordinary for players to take 40-60 sec for sorting their hand and planning their auction, so taking one minute for the tray to pass for the first time ought to be within expectations. And with N's void I would not be surprised if he considered at longer length his preempt than one without a void.

[paulg]

The Director ruled that there had been a hesitation in the auction and removed the double, so scored as a failing slam. All the players seemed satisfied that this was the appropriate ruling.

[Vampyr]

cardsharp, on Jun 2 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

The Director ruled that there had been a hesitation in the auction and removed the double, so scored as a failing slam. All the players seemed satisfied that this was the appropriate ruling.

I don't think they should have been. Yes, declarer's play was appalling, but even appalling is not necessarily bad enough to be denied redress.

The only part of the play that is absolutely fatal is declarer's blithe reliance on West's holding the ♣A. It is not unreasonable to expect West to have something resembling a trick when he has doubled a freely bid slam. So it seems to me that if the double is disallowed, declarer should be allowed a different line of play.

Mink, I don't think you can have it both ways. if the double is not legal, then it is removed. But if the hesitation at T1 is really what led declarer astray, then I would agree with you. I am unconvinced either way on this matter.

[mink]

Vampyr, on Jun 2 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

Mink, I don't think you can have it both ways. if the double is not legal, then it is removed. But if the hesitation at T1 is really what led declarer astray, then I would agree with you. I am unconvinced either way on this matter.

The 2 hesitations are independent. If the second did not occur, and South made his contract, for sure he would not call the TD in order to get the double removed, and even if the TD was called by EW, he would not remove the double, because there would have been no damage.

Karl

[campboy]

Vampyr, on Jun 2 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

I don't think they should have been. Yes, declarer's play was appalling, but even appalling is not necessarily bad enough to be denied redress.

The TD hasn't denied redress; if he had done he would have given a split score. He has just decided, rightly or wrongly, that there is no reason to believe declarer would play differently without the double, IOW that the bad play was subsequent but not consequent.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on Jun 2 2010, 01:15 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jun 2 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

I don't think they should have been. Yes, declarer's play was appalling, but even appalling is not necessarily bad enough to be denied redress.

The TD hasn't denied redress; if he had done he would have given a split score. He has just decided, rightly or wrongly, that there is no reason to believe declarer would play differently without the double, IOW that the bad play was subsequent but not consequent.

But this is nonsense, since declarer put all his eggs in one basket -- that of LHO holding the ♥A.

[dburn]

Vampyr, on Jun 2 2010, 01:49 PM, said:

campboy, on Jun 2 2010, 01:15 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Jun 2 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

I don't think they should have been. Yes, declarer's play was appalling, but even appalling is not necessarily bad enough to be denied redress.

The TD hasn't denied redress; if he had done he would have given a split score. He has just decided, rightly or wrongly, that there is no reason to believe declarer would play differently without the double, IOW that the bad play was subsequent but not consequent.

But this is nonsense, since declarer put all his eggs in one basket -- that of LHO holding the ♥A.

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.

[nige1]

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.