[Hanoi5]

It's unethical and against the spirit of the laws and the game to think when you shouldn't in order to mislead the opponents. So when you hold a singleton you should play it right away and not think before playing it (of course there are two issues, you shouldn't play TOO fast if you're a defender and you CAN think when the singleton is in dummy). Somebody told me I 'misbehaved' in this position:

Dummy:            ♦Q9x

Declarer's hand♦AKxx

RHO led a diamond and I hesitated a bit (apparently, I don't remember, and I didn't do it on purpose anyway) eventually playing the Ace. LHO (and probably RHO, too) was fooled into believing his partner had ♦K; no damage resulted but I was told off, i was told I HAD to win with the ♦K in order to make the situation clear. I asked somebody at the club and they said I DIDN'T have to play the ♦K but that I did have to say something like 'Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about'.

What is correct in this type of situation?

Now for the bonus:

1♠ 2♦    2♠ Pass
4♣ Pass 4♠ All Pass

I led the ♦A (Kelsey's style):

---

Your lead catches only small cards. How do you continue?

---

Well, it involves a mistake from declarer (but a mistake many would commit). I couldn't make this defense though as my partner played the small diamond like a lightning (almost before dummy went down) and so I didn't want to take advantage or be unethical.

[TimG]

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

Dummy:            ♦Q9x

Declarer's hand♦AKxx

RHO led a diamond and I hesitated a bit (apparently, I don't remember, and I didn't do it on purpose anyway) eventually playing the Ace.

I did have to say something like 'Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about'.

There are probably valid bridge reasons for pausing before winning in hand, you might have been deciding whether you wanted to be in hand or in dummy, for instance.

I don't like the apology and think that making such statements can lead to bad habits. I once played with someone who always had a singleton when he made such a statement, for instance. Not to say that anyone who makes such statements will fall into bad habits, but the statements shouldn't be necessary in the first place.

[glen]

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

... RHO led a diamond and I hesitated a bit (apparently, I don't remember, and I didn't do it on purpose anyway) ...

From the best that you remember, would this be before you played from dummy, or before you played from hand? Thinking before playing from dummy would be common in this situation.

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

... no damage resulted but I was told off, i was told I HAD to win with the ♦K in order to make the situation clear ...

This is silly - please ignore these people from now on, and call the TD if they continue to be this rude.

[keylime]

I think your opp is a legal eagle, and not a bridge player. I would never apologize for something like (and for most disputed BITs in general).

[barmar]

glen, on Jan 27 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

... RHO led a diamond and I hesitated a bit (apparently, I don't remember, and I didn't do it on purpose anyway) ...

From the best that you remember, would this be before you played from dummy, or before you played from hand? Thinking before playing from dummy would be common in this situation.

He said RHO led, so obviously it was before he played from hand.

But thinking about whether you wanted to win in hand or dummy would be normal, I don't see the problem.

[peachy]

Was it the TD or the opponents who told you off? If the opponents, they have overstepped. If the TD, dunno what to say...
Also, if you don't remember pausing, then how could you have known to say 'Sorry, had nothing to think about'. I find those type of comments unnecessary anyway, extraneous and annoying. I know couple of players who issue these comments in certain situations (probably they don't even know they are doing it) when they want a switch and/or didn't like the lead. Ugly.

As to winning with the A instead of the K, you can win the trick with whatever card you choose. There is no law or regulation or 'spirit of the game' to obligate you "to make it clear for the opponents". But you do have the obligation to keep tempo and not make it look like you have something to think about when you don't have anything to think about so it helps to pay attention to at least be aware if you did take a pause to think. Overall, it is best to think at trick one, to reduce pauses later in the hand.

[barmar]

peachy, on Jan 27 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

Was it the TD or the opponents who told you off? If the opponents, they have overstepped. If the TD, dunno what to say...
Also, if you don't remember pausing, then how could you have known to say 'Sorry, had nothing to think about'. I find those type of comments unnecessary anyway, extraneous and annoying. I know couple of players who issue these comments in certain situations (probably they don't even know they are doing it) when they want a switch and/or didn't like the lead. Ugly.

The one that bugs me is "still sorting". We're not playing with screens, we can all see what's going on.

[mikeh]

You are entitled to take your time, and to think about where you want to be after winning the trick. It is also legitimate to hestitate even if the hesitation arose while you were thinking about whether playing the A might induce the opps to misplace the King. Note, that this is NOT the same as deliberately hestitating in order to create this impression... but, say that your instinctive reaction was to play low, and then you thought 'hey, I don't want them to switch when I give up the lead, maybe I should play the A so as to leave open the possibility that I don't have the king'... that thinking does take a second or two, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

OTOH, if your immediate reaction was 'play the A... and hestitate to create uncertainty', that is unethical.

As for 'always playing the K'... get a grip, opps.. that is absurd... silly beyond measure.. yes, wouldn't the game be easier if falsecards weren't allowed?

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

It's unethical and against the spirit of the laws and the game to think when you shouldn't in order to mislead the opponents.

It's against the letter of the laws, not just their spirit.

Quote

Somebody told me I 'misbehaved' in this position:

Dummy:            ♦Q9x

Declarer's hand♦AKxx

RHO led a diamond and I hesitated a bit (apparently, I don't remember, and I didn't do it on purpose anyway) eventually playing the Ace. LHO (and probably RHO, too) was fooled into believing his partner had ♦K;

As long as you were thinking about a bridge problem, you did nothing improper. For example, deciding which hand to win it in is a bridge problem.

Quote

no damage resulted but I was told off, i was told I HAD to win with the ♦K in order to make the situation clear.

If that came from the opponents. the proper response to this is either "Director please", or another two-word phrase in common use.

[Lobowolf]

If you have a "bridge reason" to think, you're allowed to hesitate, and opponents are allowed to draw inferences from your hesitation at their own risk.
Unless you're Joel Wooldridge.

As has been pointed out, if your hesitation is "poker style" (i.e. designed to mislead the opponents), you're on the wrong side of the law.

[jdonn]

The one who wanted you to say "Sorry I didn't have anything to think about" is just stupid. You did have something to think about! Does he want you to say "Sorry I was thinking, but it may not have been about what you think I was thinking about"???

As for the person who says you HAD to win the king, no you don't HAVE to, although if you do so purely to avoid fooling the opponents then your act is commendable. You should have asked your opponent if he would have complained to being fooled into you having KJx or something if you had played the king.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

If you have a "bridge reason" to think, you're allowed to hesitate, and opponents are allowed to draw inferences from your hesitation at their own risk.
Unless you're Joel Wooldridge.

Hmm, care to elaborate? I suspect this is an ignorant comment about an old appeal case...

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 27 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

If you have a "bridge reason" to think, you're allowed to hesitate, and opponents are allowed to draw inferences from your hesitation at their own risk.
Unless you're Joel Wooldridge.

Hmm, care to elaborate? I suspect this is an ignorant comment about an old appeal case...

You're close; it's an informed comment about an old appeals case. Wooldridge hesitated and gave a bridge reason for the hesitation; an opponent mistakenly placed a card in Wooldridge's hand and subsequently misdefended. Wooldridge lost the appeal.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 27 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

If you have a "bridge reason" to think, you're allowed to hesitate, and opponents are allowed to draw inferences from your hesitation at their own risk.
Unless you're Joel Wooldridge.

Hmm, care to elaborate? I suspect this is an ignorant comment about an old appeal case...

You're close; it's an informed comment about an old appeals case. Wooldridge hesitated and gave a bridge reason for the hesitation; an opponent mistakenly placed a card in Wooldridge's hand and subsequently misdefended. Wooldridge lost the appeal.

Ok, sorry I think I misunderstood what you meant. I recall that he was deciding between two equivalent cards in that one might have been more deceptive than the other, like xxx in dummy KQx in hand and they lead the suit from his right. A debate sprung about whether deciding between the king and the queen is a valid enough "bridge reason" to hesitate.

The problem is Joel is too smart, and often thinking about things his opponents would never dream to think about.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 27 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 02:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 27 2009, 02:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 27 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

If you have a "bridge reason" to think, you're allowed to hesitate, and opponents are allowed to draw inferences from your hesitation at their own risk.
Unless you're Joel Wooldridge.

Hmm, care to elaborate? I suspect this is an ignorant comment about an old appeal case...

You're close; it's an informed comment about an old appeals case. Wooldridge hesitated and gave a bridge reason for the hesitation; an opponent mistakenly placed a card in Wooldridge's hand and subsequently misdefended. Wooldridge lost the appeal.

Ok, sorry I think I misunderstood what you meant. I recall that he was deciding between two equivalent cards in that one might have been more deceptive than the other, like xxx in dummy KQx in hand and they lead the suit from his right. A debate sprung about whether deciding between the king and the queen is a valid enough "bridge reason" to hesitate.

The problem is Joel is too smart, and often thinking about things his opponents would never dream to think about.

My recollection of the specifics is a bit fuzzy (the case is about 10 years old), but I think Joel couldn't have won the trick...he had something like J9x in hand and maybe the T in dummy, or some combination of intermediate cards; the suit was led on his right, and he was trying to avert a ruff.

The double (and triple) irony is that I'm pretty sure his opponent (if I'm correctly remembering who it was) is known for both putting a lot of thought (I don't mean time-consuming) into card play situations AND ethics.

[qwery_hi]

glen, on Jan 27 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

... RHO led a diamond and I hesitated a bit (apparently, I don't remember, and I didn't do it on purpose anyway) ...

From the best that you remember, would this be before you played from dummy, or before you played from hand? Thinking before playing from dummy would be common in this situation.

Hanoi5, on Jan 27 2009, 09:05 AM, said:

... no damage resulted but I was told off, i was told I HAD to win with the ♦K in order to make the situation clear ...

This is silly - please ignore these people from now on, and call the TD if they continue to be this rude.

I wonder what the TD would (could) do if he was called here.

[Fluffy]

I was told long ago that you should win the King if you hesitated on this situation (it was the ethically correct play). This probes nothing of course, except that there is more people who think that way.

[dburn]

The Law says this:

2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

73F. Violation of Proprieties

...if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent
who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

Deciding in which hand to win a trick is a demonstrable bridge reason for playing slowly to that trick. It is possible, however, that having decided to win in hand, playing the ace does not constitute being "particularly careful", since so doing might create the false impression (beneficial to your side) that you do not have the king.

A case from a European Championship bears comparison: declarer (South) in a trump contract led a low card from dummy's side suit of QJ and others. East, with AK and others, had to consider his play - declarer might have had the singleton ten, or a low singleton, or a void.

Eventually, East went up with the ace; declarer (who had a void) ruffed and later tried to ruff out West's king instead of taking a ruffing finesse against East's. He sought a ruling, and the judgement of an eminent Appeals Committee was that having broken tempo, East ought to have played the king and not the ace. The score was adjusted.

I make no comment on these facts, nor those of the original case. I reside at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James...

[Lobowolf]

dburn, on Jan 27 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

The Law says this:

2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge said:

73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

73F. Violation of Proprieties

...if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent
who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

Deciding in which hand to win a trick is a demonstrable bridge reason for playing slowly to that trick. It is possible, however, that having decided to win in hand, playing the ace does not constitute being "particularly careful", since so doing might create the false impression (beneficial to your side) that you do not have the king.

A case from a European Championship bears comparison: declarer (South) in a trump contract led a low card from dummy's side suit of QJ and others. East, with AK and others, had to consider his play - declarer might have had the singleton ten, or a low singleton, or a void.

Eventually, East went up with the ace; declarer (who had a void) ruffed and later tried to ruff out West's king instead of taking a ruffing finesse against East's. He sought a ruling, and the judgement of an eminent Appeals Committee was that having broken tempo, East ought to have played the king and not the ace. The score was adjusted.

I make no comment on these facts, nor those of the original case. I reside at Table Mountain, and my name is Truthful James...

It seems the phrase to be parsed is "should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." I would like to think that the phrase means something along the lines of "Don't think about where you're going to have dinner when you have a singleton." I just can't (read: don't want to) believe that by merely thinking about a position where it's agreed that you have something to think about, you thereby forfeit your right to falsecard/play deceptively/etc.

It's worth emphasizing that 73F does not provide a basis for the adjustment on the hand in question; on its face, it applies to opponents of players "who [have] no demonstrable bridge reason for the action."

Indeed, construing "be particularly careful" in such a way as to "protect" opponents of thoughtful players, and offering redress in situations such as this one and the Wooldridge appeal I mentioned earlier, would seem to render the "at his own risk" phrase a nullity.

I have to stand by my original impression of the laws; if there's a bona fide bridge reason for the break in tempo, the other side is on its own.

[Codo]

I have heard about the: " You must win the king" stuff too.

I cann see a reason to think about winning the trick in dummy or in hand so there is nothing wrong in thinking here and playing the ace.
Yes this will often lead the opps to a wrong clonclusion about the king, but it is still correct to think first and take the ace then.