Re: bridge reason for hesitation?

Am 06.05.2019 um 23:03 schrieb Herman De Wael:
> 
> 
> Adam Wildavsky wrote:
>> I'd say no. It was declarer's irregularity that brought about the 
>> hesitation and the bridge reasons for it. In Herman's place, I would not 
>> have thought that my hesitation might prove deceptive.
> 
> 
> Well, I did not consider it - but it certainly was.
> After all, declarer did not know he had played from the wrong hand, and 
> as I did not point that out, he had no way of knowing I was thinking 
> about accepting or not, and he could only think I had more than one (or 
> none - which was subsequently shown not to be the case).
> 
> But the question remains - is an opponent entitled to know what you are 
> thinking about?
> Something else that occurs to me regularly comes to mind.
> When having to make both the final pass and the opening lead, I never 
> put down the actual pass until I've figured out what to lead. My pause 
> for thought might be construed (wrongly, but that's his own 
> responsability) as a willingness to double and therefore to have 
> defensive values.
> Again this might be construed as deceptive when I have absolutely no 
> bridge reason to do anything but pass.
> Am I allowed to combined two pauses for thought into one, thereby not 
> revealing to declarer what it was that I was thinking about?

No. You do not have any reason to think before the final pass.
You are obviously aware of the fact that delaying the "pass" by merging
the two pauses might work to your benefit.
If some Player draws a false inference, 73E2 applies.


It looks to me very similar to declarers argument:
"I was trying to count out the hand before I won the trick with my
single Ace."

Volker

> 
> 
>>
>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM Robert Frick <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Mon, 06 May 2019 03:31:47 -0400, Herman De Wael
>>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>     ...
>>      >
>>      > Is thinking about accepting an irregularity a "valid bridge reson".
>>      > I think it is.
>>
>>     Right. But does this apply? "However, players should be particularly
>>     careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side."
>>
>>     Bob
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Blml mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 


-- 
Volker Walther

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml