[JLOGIC]

So you are making a ruling based on the fact that you think most people are flat out cheating? I mean, we are no longer talking about UI passed due to legitimate thinking (like, in this example, thinking about what kind of signals you play gives away the fact that you have more than 1 spade, so the UI is that east does not have a singleton and/or is not 100 % sure about the king lead), we are talking about "well, I know we play count so I have nothing to think about, but if I incorporate hesitating with a low suit preference, and playing quickly with a high suit preference, I can simultaneously give count and suit preference and my partner will read it because he's in on it."

Seriously, if I was east I would be hoping for a ruff. It's pretty far sighted to know that your partner has AK and not KQ, and your partner has 6 spades, and your partner has a singleton diamond (because if they didn't a club return would be automatic), and partner has the CQ, and partner has no trump trick despite us having 2 small and dummy having a void, in which case we need to cheat and give suit pref and have partner read it. I highly doubt anything like that was happening, more likely is east was not sure what signal he played on the king lead as he said.

But I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to speculate on it anyways. It does not seem like a reasonable ruling that a slow low spade demonstrably suggests a club shift because in your experience partnerships are colluding with illegal carding agreements in a certain way.

[bluecalm]

It's not about cheating. It might make some sense to play suit preference here. Maybe because the spades weren't raised and the opponent are only in game (thus suggesting some hcp for E). Maybe it's not obvious if this particular situation qualifies for such treatment. If you play slowly you alert partner that you might be treating this as one of those situations.
Imo this is UI and the information is that you might be giving suit preference.

Quote

and your partner has 6 spades

There are many players (including very reasonable ones) who never open 2M with 5 card suit.

[PhilKing]

It is more likely that West "cheated" than East. The trouble is, can we punish him for taking advantage of a crafty club signal that may have nothing of the kind except in that East had good clubs?

[phil_20686]

I thought the guidance to TD's, at least in England, is that hesitations at trick one are essentially never BITs. I am sure that gnasher can tell us.

[Zelandakh]

Fast signals are count, slow signals are suit preference. All the LOLs know this - if the problem had been posted in the I/A forum with the BIT included we would all have gotten the right answer! It would be nice to think this does not happen amongst experts...

[benlessard]

If they are expert and are regular players that have played together for 1 year than you have to assume that East know that the K ask for count. If they are not than its a totally different situation.

Lets says that you lead the K(count unblock) and see your partner (100% ethical player) go in the tank... then you know for sure that hes thinking about lying for the count (so that you switch before cashing your ace) or hes just checking that count is pointless (to both side of the table) and trying to send a suit preference. I dont see any cheating in that. If so what can the slow two suggest here ?

Quote

I highly doubt anything like that was happening, more likely is east was not sure what signal he played on the king lead as he said.

Saying this is like having an opinion about people you dont know or saying that people never lie. Maybe the director know them, why not let him judge? Directors don't punish people because they dont know their agreement or because they have made a poor defense that was rewarded by luck, but if the director is convinced that East know that the K ask for count its terrible not to rollback.

[ahydra]

http://www.ebu.co.uk...eral/pauses.htm suggests that it's OK to pause either to consider the defence to the hand as a whole, and/or to allow partner to do so.

Clearly a diamond is an LA. But I'm not convinced that the UI suggests a club switch. Has East forgotten the signalling system before? Maybe he had played a game or two recently with another partner, where they play A count King attitude? Perhaps he was also trying to work out whether the count was relevant.

I think the TD didn't ask the right person his motives - he needed to ask West why he played a club. However, if West said "my partner played the 2 and clearly count is irrelevant here so it must be SP" then I wouldn't believe him and would adjust. But if West said "it was a guess which minor suit Ace partner had, I guessed clubs" (perhaps mentioning declarer might upgrade his hand with the DA as that's partner's suit) then I would let the score stand.

ahydra

[lalldonn]

If it hesitates, shoot it!

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2012-September-19, 04:18, said:

I thought the guidance to TD's, at least in England, is that hesitations at trick one are essentially never BITs. I am sure that gnasher can tell us.

You could ask GordonTD, who has just been appointed Chief TD in the EBU. Or Frances, who is on the committee that writes the rules.

But as it happens I can answer. The EBU regulations say "It is normal for declarer to pause before playing to trick one. No inference can be or should be taken from such a pause." and "It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play. However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause."

Presumably there is a corollary: if third hand thinks for a while after declarer has paused, that does convey UI.

Note that these regulations apply only in the EBU, so they may not be relevant.

[kenrexford]

I personally am enjoying this because I thought that partner's spots were theoretically suit preference before finding out later that this is how the spots were taken and that perhaps the spotter thought about this himself.

On this issue of the hesitation, this is a TEMPO thing. If you are the type of person who thinks along these insane lines like me, establish tempo by tanking every time you get an opening lead. The length of the "hesitation" shoould not be timed but rather tied to the actor so hesitating. If he always tanks, no inference is possible.

[lamford]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-19, 15:15, said:

On this issue of the hesitation, this is a TEMPO thing. If you are the type of person who thinks along these insane lines like me, establish tempo by tanking every time you get an opening lead. The length of the "hesitation" should not be timed but rather tied to the actor so hesitating. If he always tanks, no inference is possible.

The problem is that it is very difficult to take time when it is not needed. I would bet that South thought for no longer than a couple of seconds here before calling for a small card from dummy. There is nothing for South to think about - it is solely whether the opponents find the right defence. Much of the time a defender has nothing to think about either - the defence is automatic. Again I would bet that if declarer also had the ace of clubs, he would be racking up 11 tricks at the speed of light.

In practice, East will convey UI by thinking when he needs to. However, the Law states:
"Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick." My interpretation of this is that a defender should be able to think at trick one without penalty, as the RA has so decided. I do not necessarily accept gnasher's corollary that if declarer thinks for, say, 10 seconds that a further time by the defender conveys UI. What if it takes the player longer than 10 seconds to work out the defence?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2012-September-19, 16:22, said:

I do not necessarily accept gnasher's corollary that if declarer thinks for, say, 10 seconds that a further time by the defender conveys UI. What if it takes the player longer than 10 seconds to work out the defence?

I didn't say it was necessarily fair or sensible - that's just what I think the regulation was intended to mean.