[pirate22]

---

---

teams qualifying contract a bit thin but n/s need some imps. 2h=6-11 x=values 3sp not forcing 4 sp need imps.
lead 2hts q k a----------9h 3 5sp jh-----7sp 3sp 6sp a sp........ 2sp ksp 4sp 9sp

Now declarer elected to play 7 diamonds this is when west tanked he held q5 diam-or A5 or 54 or a54.
1 am told one can tank whenever if west has a problem,east must not take advantage-its easts responsibity.
in this situation i think west;s tank as unethical--in the end declarer got it right.
but agonising for north

[Hanoi5]

West doesn't have a bridge reason to tank. If s/he does so it is EITHER because s/he is a newbie OR because s/he's trying to mislead, which would be against the laws.

[Trinidad]

Under the assumption that you have a competent director, a case like this is a win-win situation for declarer: You play West for the card he is trying to make you believe she is holding. So, in this case, you play him for the A.

If he has it, you have played correctly. If he doesn't have it, you will call the director and explain what happened. He will rule that West didn't have a bridge reason for the hesitation and will adjust the score (Law 73D2).

So, if it really is a coin flip what to do, then you win by letting the opponent mislead you. Heads: you win, tails: you don't loose.

Rik

[kenberg]

A person with any regard for the game or for his own reputation should be greatly embarrassed to be seen hesitating in such a situation. I was once accused by an opponent, one who I thought knew me well enough to know I would do no such ting, of making such a hitch. I have no idea what he saw in my mannerism at the time, but I don't do such things and I would not play with anyone who did.

Long ago Victor Mollo had an entertaining Bridge in the Menagerie story on this theme. One of the characters, Walter the Walrus I seem to recall, was being accused of hesitating when he did (yes, did, that's not a typo) have a legitimate reason. The idea was that his opponent would know that WW was good enough to prepare his choice of plays in advance, therefore the only reason for hesitating could be that he was trying to mislead the opponent. So in the current situation, WW would hesitate if he held the ace, expecting his opponent to believe that he surely would duck smoothly if he had the ace and, therefore, the hesitation means that he lacks the ace. Holding the Q without the ace, he would "duck" smoothly.

I am pleased to hear that there is a law covering this, I wasn't aware of it. In the relatively anonymous and informal setting of online bridge there are times I have found that with some opponents you should (shades of WW) take the hesitation as proof that they do not have the ace. Unfortunate, but true.

[pirate22]

to add further information thease players all 4 are
International top flight players- World Class and and will remain nameless.

by me i was Kibbing -there were also English spking commentators.
and when West tanked with qx,i was astounded.
at the time i asked one of the commentators,was that tanking
unethical-his reply west can tank whenever he wants to,but
east must not read anything into the situation,also
is responsible to take no advantage- I challenge this statement.
because declarer happened to get it right,does one think,north
now marked west for the rest of the game?and said nothing.

My own comment would be if i had been declarer i would have assumed
he had the ace...hence the tank,and plyed the K-- but would have been peeved,
and summoned the TD, i ewonder what the TD's ruling would have been

[pirate22]

Another personal incident referenc tanking was
in dummy i had KJ1095 of a side suit.with trumps in dummy and hand to give me no problem.but missing ace of trumps
and winning the opening lead,in hand played the suit having a xx {get the dirty work done at trick 2}
if the q of the suit was on side i could get rid of another looser,thus ensuring my game contract.
so proceede with this plan.i led x and played jack-my right hand opp tanked and played the ace,
a switch came about which i won and then played the second card of the same suit and finnessed the 10
my right hand opp TRUMPED the 10- now i am 1 down---my comment at the table was you took along time to find the stiff
ACE of diamonds-she then burst into tears,and left the club.screwd the movement,
and i was at a later date Hauled before the club committee,and very nearly banned from the club
having been a member for nearly 25 years.it took the comittee 6 hours to finally,send me a stiff
stiff letter,and i was on suspension for 1 year,if any one complained about anything,and i am
at the table the Bann would be automatic--to me her tanking was upheld by the commitee.
and i fully realise on BBO vu-graph there can be a delay if the operator is not on the ball,
but west tanked tanked and finally played small,and the operator was on the ball
SO ME AS AN OPPONENT DEFENDING MY OPPS CONTRACT,ANTICIPATE HAVING SEEN DUMMY,
I PLAY IN TEMPO

[nige1]

Trinidad, on 2011-June-11, 04:46, said:

Under the assumption that you have a competent director, a case like this is a win-win situation for declarer: You play West for the card he is trying to make you believe she is holding. So, in this case, you play him for the A.
If he has it, you have played correctly. If he doesn't have it, you will call the director and explain what happened. He will rule that West didn't have a bridge reason for the hesitation and will adjust the score (Law 73D2).
So, if it really is a coin flip what to do, then you win by letting the opponent mislead you. Heads: you win, tails: you don't lose.

Nobody says it better

[glen]

pirate22, on 2011-June-11, 07:48, said:

... and i fully realise on BBO vu-graph there can be a delay if the operator is not on the ball, but west tanked tanked and finally played small,and the operator was on the ball ...

and you confirmed with the operator that the tank took play? There can be gaps in internet connectivity when using wireless to connect to the net, and this would show up to everybody but the operator as a tank when there really was none.

[ggwhiz]

I can see declarer getting it right by assuming the tank was was based on whether to fly with AQx.

I agree that it is unethical to tank with the given holding and after surviving might just make a comment asking what the player was thinking of to put them on notice.

If it was necessary to call the Director, thank heavens for kibitzers. Too often you can call after the hesitation and the perpetrator simply says "No I didn't" and it gets messy.

[aguahombre]

This particular situation is so ugly (holding queen and not the ace). I will admit to being caught daydreaming about a previous trick or something in the position. When I come out of my trance I just play the queen. Holding nothing in the suit, however, whatever I do still feels tacky.

Even playing the queen is inadequate, though...since the queen not being stiff UI to pard.

[kenberg]

While such phony hitches happen regularly in pick-up on line play, the thought of an expert pair engaging in such tactics seems so far-fetched as to suggest that the answer must lie elsewhere. I really cannot see a bridge reason for a hesitation, let alone a tank. Granted there are hands where second hand high is called for, but seldom when the Jack fifth is visible and declarer has bid the suit.

In my original response I mentioned that once someone accused me of such a coffeehouse play, and to the very best of my knowledge I did no such thing. I really thought, and think, that he could have at least provisionally taken my word for it that I had no such intention. Time will tell in these matters. Similarly here, if you are watching expert players, I have to believe that there is some explanation other than the obvious. It would be good to know what it was.

Some further thoughts:

Considering the spade suit in isolation, one would have expected declarer to run the Jack at trick 2. I can see, from the full hand, some reasons why he might not do so, and maybe W was trying to work out those reasons. After all, the spade A and Q could have been reversed so declarer needs a reason to play as he did. But W picked a truly horrible time to do his thinking. Or did he? Surely W can be trusted to know that there is no reason to hop up with the (hypothetical) ace when declarer is pretty much known to have four diamonds (unless this was a precision auction). If declarer has five diamonds, rising with this hypothetical ace might drop partner's stiff Q. So declarer knows that whatever W is thinking it is not that he perhaps must play the ace to keep a stiff king from scoring. The point here is that coffee housing to fake the ace would not be effective if a competent player holding the ace would have no reason to rise or even think about rising. Even if W holds AQx, the only thing that rising with the ace will do is convince declarer that you were not worried about dropping a stiff Queen. You can hardly convince declarer that you are thinking about making a play (rising with the ace) if there is no reason whatsoever for you to make such a play. So maybe he just decided this was a good time to think. Well, maybe.

I really think the explanation is something other than an expert acting like a random. If ethics get slighted, and I suppose that they sometimes do, I would expect a good deal more subtlety. The fact that I cannot really imagine what that "something other" would be is a little upsetting.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I am pleased to hear that there is a law covering this

The law is the law and some people say it's made according to "spirit of the game". I really don't get why people aren't allowed to think whenever they please to mislead opponents. I think some very fuzzy logic were used to make those laws, probably the same one which dictated system regulations

[aguahombre]

Before anyone starts "minusing" Bluecalm because they think he is serious, please read:

http://www.bridgebas...135#entry553135

Of course, if you are part of the humor police, please proceed.

[bluecalm]

I am completely serious. I think people should be allowed to think to mislead. They aren't according to laws though so of course trying to break rules of the game to take advantage is unethical. I just happen to think the rules of the game should be different but I certainly can see a point of them being as they are now.

[blackshoe]

If you want to play poker, play poker. Bridge is not poker.

[kenberg]

The game could be played either way of course. I like it the way it is.

[wickedbid1]

bluecalm, on 2011-June-11, 15:58, said:

I am completely serious. I think people should be allowed to think to mislead. They aren't according to laws though so of course trying to break rules of the game to take advantage is unethical. I just happen to think the rules of the game should be different but I certainly can see a point of them being as they are now.

The big problems occur not so much when one tanks, as there there is often more than one possible reason, but when one plays (or bids) unusually brisky compared to one's normal tempo. A lot of players also "flip" a singlton out of their hand as they play it.

The only real solution to these sorts of things is to play & bid in tempo as much as u can, and occasionally allow a tank to pass by without comment.

If one allows no tanks, thinking goes away -- bad idea. If one allows all manner of bluffs, a pard on defence will soon be able to learn his/her pard's mannerism tendencies... seriously unbalancing the game for pick up partnerships & declarers.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2011-June-11, 18:15, said:

The game could be played either way of course. I like it the way it is.

This kind of thing is considered OK in rubber bridge, where it's every man for himself. But the Law Givers decided that duplicate bridge should be more civilized and intellectual, where we just play the cards, not psychological games.

[Cyberyeti]

I recall an incident many years ago when I was a student. The suit in question was Ax opposite KJxxxxx with the long suit in dummy.

Declarer played the ace then the small one. There was a long hesitation from the next hand followed by the play of a small card from a player who was known to me to hesitate routinely with singletons.

Declarer (I was dummy) duly finessed and lost and the director was called.

The ruling was that whether the man held x or Qx he could have nothing possible to think about so there was no adjustment.

[pirate22]

very interesting we have words to convey the same thing,
but there must be a difference..

Tank--Tanking.
Coffee housing
Hesitating
Thinking
regards