[H_KARLUK]

Hello all,

I would like to introduce a "fiction" online problem which may perhaps some TD players may interest.

event=IMP Pairs
8 mins per board

North: ♠AQ9X ♥ A7X ♦XX ♣Q9XX
East : ♠10XX ♥--- ♦KJ10XX ♣KJ10XX
South: ♠XXX ♥KQJ9X ♦AQX ♣XX
West : ♠KJX ♥108XXX ♦XXX ♣Ax





contract 4 ♥
West cashed his ♣A and played another ♣.
East switched to ♦ with Jack.
Declarer's finesse try worked,then he played a small heart to table.West played 8.
♥Ace won.
Declarer played another trump, used his master card.
South continued with ♦ A + ruffed to another ♦ fm table.
THEN THE CRITICAL MOMENT CAME :
ELAPSED TIME UP TO THAT MOMENT IS 6 MINUTES..
REASON : SO MANY CRASHES LIVED DUE TO INTERNET TRAFFIC WAS BUSY A LOT.
Declarer played a ♣ from table.
Unfortunately both south and west are Red
2 mins left and what would I rule?
To take a sub is not fair with me. A newcomer would not have enough time to judge well.
Also if declarer ruffs high there are 2 options which decides the contracts fate:
If west underruffs and play 2 rounds master ♠ then he is not caught to a thrown in play manouvre.His partner's ♠ ten is enough to set the game.
Also some other tables would reach to 3Nt and makes comfortably.
I wonder do I always assume that whole players would play like WGMs at all?
Truly yours,
H_KARLUK+++

[mr1303]

---

[mr1303]

A couple of points:

1. The fact that 3NT might make comfortably is neither here nor there. The contract here is 4♥.

2. I would cancel this board, since there are a number of lines of play that might be possible, and since the substitute would not know what to do, in my opinion it becomes unplayable.

3. Since both South and West have left, then both sides are partly at fault for the board not being playable. Therefore I adjust to Average for both sides. I only adjust a board to a result if it is clear-cut how to play.

[jillybean]

Agree, its a mess. You can neither put a sub in and expect the person to play from here nor give an actual result there is no clear, obvious line.

A==

[mink]

If we want to discuss this, what is most needed is the situation when the ruling has to be made:

Scoring: IMP

---

According to the OP, ♣5 is played next. It looks quite obvoius to me now that the declarer can make 2 more trump tricks and 2 more ♠ tricks, making 9 tricks altogether. Therefore I would set the score to 4♥-1. Awarding an aritficial score is easier of course, but it would be in favor for the declarer.

I think you should always try to find the most likely table result and adjust to it; artificial scores most time are good for one side and therefore might make people believe the letting the time run out is an option.

Karl

[jdonn]

mink, on Jun 7 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

If we want to discuss this, what is most needed is the situation when the ruling has to be made:

Scoring: IMP

---

According to the OP, ♣5 is played next. It looks quite obvoius to me now that the declarer can make 2 more trump tricks and 2 more ♠ tricks, making 9 tricks altogether. Therefore I would set the score to 4♥-1. Awarding an aritficial score is easier of course, but it would be in favor for the declarer.

I think you should always try to find the most likely table result and adjust to it; artificial scores most time are good for one side and therefore might make people believe the letting the time run out is an option.

Karl

If declarer ruffs high and west pitches a spade, then three rounds of spades endplay west for the contract as he has to ruff in. West could prevent this by underruffing when declarer ruffs the club high, but at least I can see why there is some doubt as to the result. Anyway I agree, rule 4♥-1.

[awm]

So in order to set this, west has to first underruff the club, then unblock both the jack and king of spades on the first two rounds of that suit.

Yes this is a possible sequence of plays, and double-dummy the contract is down one. How many players do you think would find this at the table? Keep in mind this is not a situation where one side is obviously "at fault" so there's no reason to assume that the defense will necessarily be best possible. I think a majority of players would err with the west cards.

Average to both sides for me. Note that this doesn't imply "letting time run out is an option" since in many cases it will be clear that one side or the other is the cause of the slow play and the result should take that into account.

[jdonn]

1) I think it's kind of misleading to call that a 'sequence of plays', it really is just one play. What I mean by that is, a west who sees the need to underruff will surely see the need to unblock spades also. Either he sees the trump endplay coming or he doesn't.
2) Is that defense really more brilliant than the declarer play of ruffing high for the trump endplay in the first place? I have seen this play in books but never at the table (except a few weeks ago when I made it in barbu!)

I agree with those who said the director should strive to assign an actual bridge result whenever possible. The WBF policy of weighting the percentages of the possible outcomes is fine too, but I don't know what rules were in place here.

[H_KARLUK]

Rehi all:-)

I think our problem mainly indicates lack of time.

So, i think if it is within our authority we may add extra time such as 2 minutes to solve what will happens at online play.

Secondly i will vote to wait till end of board.If any of red comes i ll ask his/her playing line. Due to reply may adjust the score.Otherwise AVE okay for me.

Hope I decided a fair line:-)

Kindest regards..

p.s. If u ask me playing for a finesse wld help us to see whether declarer n defender 1st class players..There an awry defender get rid of big cards n with underruff sets the contract as down 1.