Re: if what

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:29:30 -0500, Mike Amos <[email protected]> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Robert Frick
> Sent: 25 January 2018 14:48
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]>
> Subject: [BLML] if what
>
> Axx
>
> KJ1098
>
>
> Declarer leads the jack from hand towards Axx in dummy in 3NT. LHO, holding
> xx, tries to remember the proper discard playing Smith Echoes. Declarer
> plays him for the queen and makes only 3 when the finesse loses and the
> opponents run hearts. Declarer can cash out for making 4.
>
> So I have no desire to punish, but I want to rectify and give the declarer
> what he would have made if __.
>
> But if what? How many he would have made if LHO had given away the position
> of the queen? (Making 7). Or if LHO had played "normal tempo" and not given
> away the position of the queen (not risking the finesse, cashing out and
> making 4).
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> Well Robert you just have to make up your mind what you think is right.
>
> Talk to declarer's LHO.  Read him Law 73D.  Explain that deciding which card
> to play from two small is not a "demonstrable bridge reason".  Use the
> wondrous "Probst test".  Ask the player what a cheat would try to do in such
> a situation.  (obviously hesitate with two small).  Assure the player that
> there is no question of treating this hesitation as "cheating", but point
> out that this is why care must be taken and you intend to consider adjusting
> the score, namely to consider what was likely if the play of the small card
> had been in tempo.

Thanks. As noted, I decided that trying to remember Smith Echo was a bridge reason. At the table, that seemed genuine. I don't know why it would be a non-bridge reason. So there was no infraction there. If the laws wanted me to rule against someone for hesitating even if they had a bridge reason for doing so, I think they would be written differently.


>
> Ask declarer what his plans were.  We all know that everyone will say, "Oh I
> was going to win the Ace and finesse on the way back - 13 tricks to me", but
> you don't have to believe that.  Their may be a bridge reason for adopting
> this line based on bidding or previous play.   You have to decide.

Thanks. Right. Nope, I wouldn't accept that. He was trying to find the queen. If he could, with reasonable confidence (or reasonable chance of getting the director to rule for him), he would finesse. Otherwise he would play for the drop.

Or maybe he was never going to finesse, he was hoping the jack would be covered.

>
> It seems to me that it is very unlikely that any declarer will finesse at
> this point.  Surely if you are going to play for ten tricks you will play
> Ace.  You could a reason why a player might have tried to go down but 3NT+1
> seems a reasonable frequent score and 3NT-1 unlikely.   A player might
> advance a reason for the 13 trick line - "11 tricks were laydown in Spades,
> my only chance of a good score was making more in NTs".
>
> I can't imagine a high percentage of 3NT -1  so I'll give that zero.
> 80%   +1
> 20%   +4	might be a possible weighting
>
> Though if the answers to our questions suggest declarer was very likely to
> make 13 tricks you should be brave enough to award that.
>
> Any player who knows enough to play Smith, should know Law 73.  In addition
> to adjusting the score, I would make a procedural penalty, probably twice
> our standard in the EBU so 2*10% or whatever you apply.
> I would remind the offending player and partner of their right to appeal,
> but would not expect an appeals committee to give them 3NT-1 back!

Right, I lectured him on hesitating when it could mislead declarer and told him to at least say he's thinking about the hand as a whole. Then presumably declarer would not finesse and would make 4.


>
> The key question is "What would declarer's possible scores have been if LHO
> had played in tempo?".

Well, the law's say, I think, that a player takes advantage of a hesitation at his own risk. That leads clearly to not adjusting.

I don't have information about how long declarer thought to the first trick. I have less sympathy for him if he deliberately played quickly.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml