[kayin801]

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...ch.php?id=14893 and hand #47 in the open room for the reference point here.

I was watching this last night where both tables reached 5♥, but it got through in the open room by an "ethical misdefense," so to speak.

Larry Cohen was commentating and argued that after South played a SLOW ♠2 (suit preference) to trick 1, North HAD to ethically switch to the ♣A and another club, because any other play would seem unethical due to the hesitation. Of course this is what happened and the contract was let through.

Was LC just playing favorites since his ex-partner was sitting E/W or is this actually nearly required? It would seem to me that any action taken at trick 1 should be allowed to take as little or as much time as needed without reprecussions, but then again I've never even played bridge behind screens before, let alone at the level of the match in discussion.

Not to mention it's completely unclear to me to reason out that the club switch is wrong on the auction. I think I could get the North play to trick 1 right, but that's about as far as I go

[blackshoe]

When I was in the Navy, something happened at one command where I was stationed which caused the Commodore to address all the officers in the command. Among the things he said, one stuck with me: "It is not enough that an officer avoid impropriety. He must also avoid the appearance of impropriety". I'd say the same thing applies to bridge players, especially at this level. There's also Law 73C, which says a player must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of UI. North did that. I think Cohen's comments were spot on.

[gnasher]

The club switch is necessary if declarer has xxx AKxx AK KQxx. I don't know if that's possible in EW's style - both that and West's actual hand look like 4♥ bids to me.

If that hand is possible, then yes, North was obliged to play for it, given that he has UI from South's tempo.

Quote

It would seem to me that any action taken at trick 1 should be allowed to take as little or as much time as needed without reprecussions, but then again I've never even played bridge behind screens before, let alone at the level of the match in discussion.

Once the play starts you can see each card as it is played, so the use of screens doesn't obfuscate partner's tempo.

If South plays a fast ♠2 when he has a singleton club and a slow ♠2 when he doesn't, that conveys UI. The UI constrains North's actions. That applies with screens or without, and it applies both in the Spingold final and at your local club.

[barmar]

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1, they don't do it consistently, even at this level. Since North could detect a tempo break, and could tell what it suggested, he was ethically obligated to avoid taking advantage of it. Even though the auction might suggest the same action, it's only permissible if there's no other logical alternative consistent with the auction.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Aug 2 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

Its not in the laws.

[kayin801]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

The club switch is necessary if declarer has xxx AKxx AK KQxx. I don't know if that's possible in EW's style - both that and West's actual hand look like 4♥ bids to me.

If that hand is possible, then yes, North was obliged to play for it, given that he has UI from South's tempo.

Quote

It would seem to me that any action taken at trick 1 should be allowed to take as little or as much time as needed without reprecussions, but then again I've never even played bridge behind screens before, let alone at the level of the match in discussion.

Once the play starts you can see each card as it is played, so the use of screens doesn't obfuscate partner's tempo.

If South plays a fast ♠2 when he has a singleton club and a slow ♠2 when he doesn't, that conveys UI. The UI constrains North's actions. That applies with screens or without, and it applies both in the Spingold final and at your local club.

E-W play a club system so E's X didn't promise hearts, I don't think. Only semi-positive values.

So if North (hypothetically speaking) figured out declarer was exactly 2434 and knew that a switch elsewhere wouldn't give away the contract, then is he no longer obligated to switch to a club here? Or is it still required?

Sorry if this seems obvious to a lot of people, this isn't something I think I've ever encountered (or if I have the problem didn't occur to me at the time) so I'm just trying to make sure I understand it.

[gnasher]

kayin801, on Aug 1 2010, 11:49 PM, said:

E-W play a club system so E's X didn't promise hearts, I don't think. Only semi-positive values.

Now it makes sense.

Quote

So if North (hypothetically speaking) figured out declarer was exactly 2434 and knew that a switch elsewhere wouldn't give away the contract, then is he no longer obligated to switch to a club here? Or is it still required?

If North knew that declarer was 2434, there would be no bridge reason to switch to ace and another club - it could never gain, and could only lose or break even. If there's no bridge reason to do it, it's not a logical alternative and he's not obliged to do it.

[awm]

This situation (tempo on defense readable by partner) comes up fairly frequently in high-level bridge. In my experience, it's difficult to obtain a ruling in these cases. Whereas tempo issues in the bidding make frequent appearances in the appeals casebooks (and are usually, if not always, dealt with well) tempo issues in the play are a tougher issue.

So for the most part, what Brad does in this situation is on his own conscience. Kudos to him for deciding to take the ethical course.

[aguahombre]

MM's Ace and a club was indicated by the 2 of spades. Slow or fast, the 2 of spades was an error.

MM deserves credit for making the shift indicated by the card, and ignoring the tempo. FG gets the charge for spending extra time to play the wrong spade.

[kayin801]

aguahombre, on Aug 1 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

MM's Ace and a club was indicated by the 2 of spades. Slow or fast, the 2 of spades was an error.

MM deserves credit for making the shift indicated by the card, and ignoring the tempo. FG gets the charge for spending extra time to play the wrong spade.

BM, not MM.

[gnasher]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 11:00 PM, said:

The club switch is necessary if declarer has xxx AKxx AK KQxx.

Sorry, that's not true. If that's the layout it's sufficient for North to continue spades.

I now can't think of a layout where North's action was necessary, so I don't think he was obliged to do what he did. Maybe Fred can tell us what layout his partner was catering for?

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

The club switch is necessary if declarer has xxx AKxx AK KQxx.  I don't know if that's possible in EW's style - both that and West's actual hand look like 4♥ bids to me.

If that hand is possible, then yes, North was obliged to play for it, given that he has UI from South's tempo.

Do you mean xx AKxx AK KQxxx? Given your hand the contract does not seem beatable.

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

What I am wondering whether in this situation it would be good to have an agreement like "We use the lowest card as SP with a club honor, and 2nd lowest with shortness", and whether some actually have that agreement. This would have told Brad that South cannot have shortness, and thus he could have

[cherdanno]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

Quote

So if North (hypothetically speaking) figured out declarer was exactly 2434 and knew that a switch elsewhere wouldn't give away the contract, then is he no longer obligated to switch to a club here? Or is it still required?

If North knew that declarer was 2434, there would be no bridge reason to switch to ace and another club - it could never gain, and could only lose or break even. If there's no bridge reason to do it, it's not a logical alternative and he's not obliged to do it.

I think it depends on the level of the players. I think there are many players that would notice after a slow 2 that the club switch can't be necessary, but would switch to a club without thinking after a fast 2.
At a level where players routinely run through declarer's shape before making a possibly dangerous switch ignoring the SP should be allowed. That level obviously starts below Spingold finalists, but maybe not that further down.

[kayin801]

Also a hand like xxx, AKJx, AK10, Q10x would also require a club switch. Maybe that's not a X though, even if it does have 4 hearts.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Do you mean xx AKxx AK KQxxx? Given your hand the contract does not seem beatable.

A club switch isn't necessary in this layout either.

[kayin801]

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

Then South has 6 spades I don't know if a club switch is needed unless partner has the K. Maybe E could be 2533, so xx, AKJxx, AKx, Q10x

[peachy]

kayin801, on Aug 1 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

The club switch is necessary if declarer has xxx AKxx AK KQxx.  I don't know if that's possible in EW's style - both that and West's actual hand look like 4♥ bids to me.

If that hand is possible, then yes, North was obliged to play for it, given that he has UI from South's tempo.

Quote

It would seem to me that any action taken at trick 1 should be allowed to take as little or as much time as needed without reprecussions, but then again I've never even played bridge behind screens before, let alone at the level of the match in discussion.

Once the play starts you can see each card as it is played, so the use of screens doesn't obfuscate partner's tempo.

If South plays a fast ♠2 when he has a singleton club and a slow ♠2 when he doesn't, that conveys UI. The UI constrains North's actions. That applies with screens or without, and it applies both in the Spingold final and at your local club.

E-W play a club system so E's X didn't promise hearts, I don't think. Only semi-positive values.

So if North (hypothetically speaking) figured out declarer was exactly 2434 and knew that a switch elsewhere wouldn't give away the contract, then is he no longer obligated to switch to a club here? Or is it still required?

Sorry if this seems obvious to a lot of people, this isn't something I think I've ever encountered (or if I have the problem didn't occur to me at the time) so I'm just trying to make sure I understand it.

There is really not much to understand. Let us put aside the hand in question and speak of the general principle.

The bridge laws say - and I am just making it a simplified thing without quoting the actual law, but you could read it yourself if you like:

When a player has Unauthorised Information (partner's haste, hesitancy, mannerism, remark, facial expression, sigh, etc. doesn't matter what it is), the player must carefully avoid taking any advantage of that UI.

Very simple.

[fred]

gnasher, on Aug 1 2010, 11:03 PM, said:

I now can't think of a layout where North's action was necessary, so I don't think he was obliged to do what he did.  Maybe Fred can tell us what layout his partner was catering for?

I didn't ask Brad and, after a minute or so of thought, I can't think of any hand that is consistent with the bidding where a club shift is necessary. This might have been one of the few "mistakes" Brad made in the Spingold - he really played great.

In fairness to Brad, he was probably flustered by my seriously out of tempo signal (not to mention that I appeared to be in a persistent vegatative state throughout the 3rd segment).

In fairness to me, Sontag instantly called a card from the dummy. That practice is generally frowned upon in high-level circles in the USA (as is not signalling in tempo). I was not ready to play and figured that, since I needed at least a few seconds to think anyway, I might as well take as much time as I required - there would be a break in tempo no matter what and I didn't think the degree would be that important.

In fairness to Sontag, he immediately apologized and told me to take as much time as I needed. He is certainly not the sort of guy who would insta-play on purpose in the hope of creating an ethical problem for his opponents.

If Sontag had waited the customary 5 seconds or so, I like to think that I would have played a card then even if I was not yet certain of the card I wanted to play.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Phil]

kayin801, on Aug 1 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

Then South has 6 spades I don't know if a club switch is needed unless partner has the K. Maybe E could be 2533, so xx, AKJxx, AKx, Q10x

I get to pick on everything in this thread?

Funny looking double

@Fred: 'Only five seconds'? One mississippi, two mississippi......isn't a lot of time. The Cavendish 'strongly recommends' 15 seconds before calling for a card, and that 3rd chair takes at least 10.

[NickRW]

Dunno what is usual practice in the US, but personally I wouldn't have any time for a BIT claim by a declarer who didn't take 10 seconds to play to trick one and then his RHO took the normal time for trick one anyway.

If the actual pause was 5 seconds, I don't think there is an issue.