[Ethel]

I was asked this question about the ruling on this situation. I was not involved in any way in the process or the decision. If anyone can help I would appreciate it. Contract is 3NT

Dummy holds: K Q x x Clubs


LHO has discarded two clubs
on another suit that was led
Now a small club is led from the
dummy and RHO HESITATES (this was admitted by RHO)
Declarer holds the A T x and plays the
TEN
LHO wins the J
Declarer calls director - Do you adjust for the hesitation?
The declarer in question is very experienced. Do you rule that the play of the hand was inferior and the result stands?


Thanks.

[ahydra]

We need a lot more info than that - preferably the full hand, and what did the discards mean, the standard of the players, etc.

It's not legal to hesitate for the purposes of informing partner about something or misleading your opposition. But say the RHO was new to count signals and couldn't remember for a second which way round he should be playing his spot cards, it would be fine to pause to think about this.

As for declarer, the full hand would be useful, but I doubt there's many situations in which he couldn't have tried the K first (and seeing both follow, would continue to cash out the suit if he so desired)?

ahydra

[pran]

Declarer might have had a reason to keep his x for entry to dummy in the third club trick. (Not that this matters much.)

East's hesitation is inexcusable unless he is a very inexperienced player. He could have saved his bacon with an immediate statement like "sorry, I had nothing to think about" when playing after the hesitation; now an adjustment is almost obvious. Cheap excuses like "I was considering whether to false-card or not" or "I had to refresh my memory on what signals we use" are just that: Too cheap.

[gordontd]

ahydra, on 2011-April-07, 17:19, said:

It's not legal to hesitate for the purposes of informing partner about something or misleading your opposition. But say the RHO was new to count signals and couldn't remember for a second which way round he should be playing his spot cards, it would be fine to pause to think about this.

EBU White Book:

Quote

73.1 Hesitating with two small cards
Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1
makes clear that this is an infraction. The player has failed to be "particularly careful in
positions where variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side" and to do so
is not usually considered "a demonstrable bridge reason" for the purposes of Law 73F.

[bluejak]

I agree that East has nothing to think about so his conduct is not excusable, and I shall do anything from explain to him very nicely up to give a PP dependent whether he is a novice or a world champion.

But surely he is not thinking of playing the jack so the thought does not tell declarer where the jack is? Unless declarer is a very poor player I do not think an adjustment suitable.

Actually my guess is that declarer is one of two things: either a clever fellow trying a double shot - which will get him a knowing smile and nothing more - or a novice in which case I might adjust.

[Ethel]

Thanks everyone. I am so glad this forum is continuing. The different explanations certainly make it helpful to those of us who still struggle with final decisions, especially as most of us are playing directors and usually have to make a quick decision to keep the game moving. I always like to check with other directors to see if my rulings are close to correct. LOL I appreciate your input. I sometimes get a call with very little information (as in this problem) and am asked my opinion. It is nice when my answer is confirmed by the experts on this site. Again thank you.

[qwery_hi]

bluejak, on 2011-April-07, 18:27, said:

I agree that East has nothing to think about so his conduct is not excusable, and I shall do anything from explain to him very nicely up to give a PP dependent whether he is a novice or a world champion.

But surely he is not thinking of playing the jack so the thought does not tell declarer where the jack is? Unless declarer is a very poor player I do not think an adjustment suitable.

Actually my guess is that declarer is one of two things: either a clever fellow trying a double shot - which will get him a knowing smile and nothing more - or a novice in which case I might adjust.

IMO it's important not to make an adjustment in cases where declarer's play after a hesitation is suboptimal. I'm assuming here that in this hand declarer could cash his King first without risk. The Law says declarer takes inferences "at his own risk", and if an adjustment is made then there's really no risk, is there?

[gnasher]

I don't understand all the assertions that East had nothing to think about. Without seeing the whole hand, how can you possibly know?

If East's choice of card on this trick means something in his partnership, he may well have something to think about. If they play Smith, he has to decide whether to encourage the original lead. If they play suit preference, he has to decide what to signal for. If they play count, he has to decide whether to give true count. If they play different signals depending on what is needed, he has to decide what is needed. He may be able to make this decision in tempo, but he may not.

It is true that if you hesitate with two small cards in a situation where it could deceive declarer, that may be a breach of Law 73.1, but this isn't such a situation. It is inconceivable that East would consider playing the jack here. If East hesitates, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that his hand contains two or more small clubs, and he was considering which of them to play.

[alphatango]

gnasher, on 2011-April-08, 02:18, said:

I don't understand all the assertions that East had nothing to think about. Without seeing the whole hand, how can you possibly know?
<snip>
It is inconceivable that East would consider playing the jack here. If East hesitates, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that his hand contains two or more small clubs, and he was considering which of them to play.

bluejak, on 2011-April-07, 18:27, said:

But surely he is not thinking of playing the jack so the thought does not tell declarer where the jack is?

Without seeing the whole hand, how can you possibly know?

From declarer's point of view, East (relevant defender) might hold Jxxx. Then East might think the layout is:

N: KQxx E: Jxxx S: T W: Ax(xx -- pitched)

where declarer, needing two club tricks, has decided to play for remaining stiff CA with West.

EDIT: Or perhaps East has been reading too many textbooks with "second hand high" examples.

qwery_hi, on 2011-April-08, 00:31, said:

IMO it's important not to make an adjustment in cases where declarer's play after a hesitation is suboptimal. I'm assuming here that in this hand declarer could cash his King first without risk.

Even if this was suboptimal (perhaps declarer needs all his dummy entries?), the hesitation occurred after the club was led from dummy, so declarer needs to decide now if he wants to pick up Jxxx.


EDIT: For clarity, my viewpoint is that: a) on the facts given, the actual defender was not "particularly careful" (agree with the thread consensus), and b) without more information, it seems entirely plausible for a defender in this position to be considering playing the jack (disagree with bluejak and gnasher), and therefore c) I would adjust.

[gnasher]

alphatango, on 2011-April-08, 03:49, said:

Without seeing the whole hand, how can you possibly know?

From declarer's point of view, East (relevant defender) might hold Jxxx. Then East might think the layout is:

N: KQxx E: Jxxx S: T W: Ax(xx -- pitched)

where declarer, needing two club tricks, has decided to play for remaining stiff CA with West.

Yes, I agree that if this layout is possible the situation changes. If South might think that East might think West has ♣A, East does have to take particular care with his tempo.

This scenario isn't particularly likely, but the director should certainly consider whether the bidding and play make that possible.

Quote

EDIT: For clarity, my viewpoint is that: a) on the facts given, the actual defender was not "particularly careful" (agree with the thread consensus), and b) without more information, it seems entirely plausible for a defender in this position to be considering playing the jack (disagree with bluejak and gnasher), and therefore c) I would adjust.

That's a strange conclusion. I think your viewpoint should be that we have insufficient information to rule.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2011-April-08, 05:46, said:

Yes, I agree that if this layout is possible the situation changes. If South might think that East might think West has ♣A, East does have to take particular care with his tempo.

This scenario isn't particularly likely, but the director should certainly consider whether the bidding and play make that possible.



That's a strange conclusion. I think your viewpoint should be that we have insufficient information to rule.

I may agree that we have insufficient information to rule; and the benefit of this doubt must be resolved against East who after all is the offender.

[alphatango]

gnasher, on 2011-April-08, 05:46, said:

That's a strange conclusion. I think your viewpoint should be that we have insufficient information to rule.

Correct, I wrote too quickly in my post above. I meant to say that I would not deny declarer an adjustment on the basis of the position as presented in the OP.