[Chainat]

---

The lead was take by ♦ace - and as it is everything looks like a club switch.
What north doesn't know, the jack is a singleton.
Furthermore, if it was ♣J10, the ♣ 7 looks good.
And the diamond lead looked like a terrific lead so ♦ again, end of play.

What happened was:

After the lead was taked with ♦ ace, south looked for the best option, and returned a club.
West then, hand to think what to do!
West was thinking, sitting and wondering what to do for about 20 seconds, before throwing in the king.
West is a very good player.

I asked west: "What's there to think about"?

"I was thinking if I should play the king or the queen, to confuse north".

What's your comments?

Thanks.

- results stands, due to north's arguments above, but I said to west that it
is absolutely not allowed - it is not in the best interst of the game.

[nige1]

Chainat, on 2014-July-27, 10:11, said:

The lead was take by ♦ace - and as it is everything looks like a club switch. What north doesn't know, the jack is a singleton. Furthermore, if it was ♣J10, the ♣ 7 looks good. And the diamond lead looked like a terrific lead so ♦ again, end of play. What happened was: After the lead was taken with ♦ ace, south looked for the best option, and returned a club. West then, hand to think what to do! West was thinking, sitting and wondering what to do for about 20 seconds, before throwing in the king. West is a very good player. I asked west: "What's there to think about"? "I was thinking if I should play the king or the queen, to confuse north". What's your comments? Thanks.
- results stands, due to north's arguments above, but I said to west that it is absolutely not allowed - it is not in the best interests of the game.

---

Agree. I witnessed a similar case. LHO led a ♣ to 3N. RHO won ♣K and returned a ♣. Declarer's original holding was ♣QJx and he tanked over his play. LHO won ♣A and switched, allowing the contract to make. Declarer would later explain that he was wondering which honour was the more confusing.

[trevahound]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Isn't this adjustable under law 73?

As I understand, one may not use tempo to deliberately deceive. If my cards are bridge equivalent, and I can deceive through tempo, and I can after the fact say I was considering which was more deceptive (if I'm even called on it), then apparently I can use tempo to deliberately deceive. I fail to see how this doesn't appear flagrant, regardless of what was going on in the hesitator's mind.

[TylerE]

I'm going to tend to disagree to an extent. There are many things a player could be thinking about besides which of two equivalent cards to play. Players are allowed to think about the entire hand.

[gordontd]

TylerE, on 2014-July-27, 20:07, said:

Players are allowed to think about the entire hand.

Not by breaking tempo at that moment, no.

[mycroft]

You haven't mentioned where you are, but the ACBL has case law to say effectively that "determining which is the more misleading card is not a valid reason to hesitate, especially when the hesitation itself may be sufficiently misleading." It's in the context of "what do I pitch from 875 to make it look like...", but I'd apply it here.

[axman]

trevahound, on 2014-July-27, 12:34, said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Isn't this adjustable under law 73?

As I understand, one may not use tempo to deliberately deceive. If my cards are bridge equivalent, and I can deceive through tempo, and I can after the fact say I was considering which was more deceptive (if I'm even called on it), then apparently I can use tempo to deliberately deceive. I fail to see how this doesn't appear flagrant, regardless of what was going on in the hesitator's mind.

Some caution is in order. It is an infraction to consider how to deceive- as when deciding which of equals, since the considering can deceive.

Such was this case because West stated as fact that he was trying to figure out which deceptive card to play.

However, a valid reason to reflect is for the purpose of considering if the CJ is a singleton- in which case the thing to be thinking about is if there is something to be gained should N duck. And as it happens, there might be [but there isn't]: if south doesn't switch to a S the losses are limited to 2C and a D; but if the switch is to a S, the S ruff loses control so the losses are 2C, 1D, and 1S- therefore, it is right to cover after thinking about it.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2014-July-28, 09:51, said:

You haven't mentioned where you are, but the ACBL has case law to say effectively that "determining which is the more misleading card is not a valid reason to hesitate, especially when the hesitation itself may be sufficiently misleading." It's in the context of "what do I pitch from 875 to make it look like...", but I'd apply it here.

Cite, please?

[chrism]

This is similar to Case 8 from the 1998 Orlando NABC (http://web2.acbl.org...books/98orl.pdf), though that is not the direct source of mycroft's case law.

[Chainat]

mycroft, on 2014-July-28, 09:51, said:

You haven't mentioned where you are, but the ACBL has case law to say effectively that "determining which is the more misleading card is not a valid reason to hesitate, especially when the hesitation itself may be sufficiently misleading." It's in the context of "what do I pitch from 875 to make it look like...", but I'd apply it here.

A normal live bridge event in Thailand, where ACBL laws are used. West admitted both the hesitation as well as the throwing of the card. I'd consider west to be among the top twenty players in the country.

[helene_t]

chrism, on 2014-July-28, 20:51, said:

This is similar to Case 8 from the 1998 Orlando NABC (http://web2.acbl.org...books/98orl.pdf), though that is not the direct source of mycroft's case law.

Heh. Rosenberg's defense was "egregious". It can happen to everyone

[mycroft]

It certainly would be somewhere around there, but yes, that is not the case law I was looking for. IIRC, it was a matter of whether the 8 or the 7 (or 6, whichever one declarer had) was the better card to confuse the count.