[bixby]

---

The opening lead of the C10 went to the Jack, Queen, and Ace. Declarer crossed to the HK and successfully ran the H10. Declarer led a diamond toward his King, which was taken by West's Ace. West returned the Queen and then the Jack of diamonds, the latter ruffed in hand by delcarer as dummy discarded a small spade. Declarer drew the last trump with the Ace; West discarded the D6 and dummy the S8. Declarer then cashed the CK and C9.

Declarer was now down to the S95 HJ8 in hand and SKJ10 C7 in dummy. Faced with the crucial guess, declarer led the S9 toward dummy. West hesitated for a long time before playing the S2. Inferring that West held the SA (as he could hardly be thinking of covering with the SQ given that dummy had the King, Jack, and Ten), declarer called for the King, and therefore went down one.

Is declarer entitled to any redress?

[Tramticket]

This is covered by:

73.D 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.

From the facts supplied, I would assess that West has failed to maintain a steady tempo in a situation where he/she knew or should have known that it may work to their benefit.

[BudH]

Tramticket, on 2018-July-04, 07:01, said:

This is covered by:

73.D 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.

From the facts supplied, I would assess that West has failed to maintain a steady tempo in a situation where he/she knew or should have known that it may work to their benefit.

Agree completely - and unfortunately is something I see in my local club far too frequently. But in those cases, the pause is just short enough that they won't get nailed for it.

[steve2005]

I am not sure a hesitation on this hand indicates anything other than not a good bridge player.
Is clear you have to guess spade and don't have a singleton so will always duck. Except maybe with A&Q.

[steve2005]

I have a partner who thought for a long time before ducking.
Opps had made a mild slam try and ended up in 4♥.
Partner had AJx spades A and some small diamonds.
Board had Kxx diamonds.
Declarer led T diamonds
Partner thought for a very long time before ducking.
Incredible declarer didnt even have JD there wasn't even a guess but if there was he just gave it to him,
Cashing the two aces would have been a top, IMHO cashing the two aces was possible as the 1st two tricks.

[pescetom]

bixby, on 2018-July-04, 05:16, said:

Is declarer entitled to any redress?

No answer from the TDs here?

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2018-July-05, 09:41, said:

No answer from the TDs here?

I thought the first two replies were clear.

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2018-July-05, 09:53, said:

I thought the first two replies were clear.

So if the pause is long enough to constitute a clear violation of 73D they will not get away with it?
What redress will the TD concede?

[blackshoe]

The answer to the question is "yes".

Given the facts as reported in the OP, Law 73D applies, as Tramticket said. So does Law 73E, and 73E2 says "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score" so I would adjust the score to 4♥ making 4.

[Cyberyeti]

This case is pretty clear as others have said.

You have to be careful however with holdings like Kx/AJxxxxx where you cash the K, lead the second one and the next hand plays low slowly. I've not got the ruling when this turns out to be a singleton and partner finessed, on the grounds that whether second hand had x/Qx there is nothing to hesitate about, so partner should have ignored it.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-July-05, 10:04, said:

The answer to the question is "yes".

Given the facts as reported in the OP, Law 73D applies, as Tramticket said. So does Law 73E, and 73E2 says "If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score" so I would adjust the score to 4♥ making 4.

Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-July-05, 10:52, said:

This case is pretty clear as others have said.

You have to be careful however with holdings like Kx/AJxxxxx where you cash the K, lead the second one and the next hand plays low slowly. I've not got the ruling when this turns out to be a singleton and partner finessed, on the grounds that whether second hand had x/Qx there is nothing to hesitate about, so partner should have ignored it.

While a player shouldn't have anything to think about in either case, he obviously has less to think about when there isn't even a choice, compared to the case where one of the choices is just silly.