[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2011-July-14, 11:25, said:

Deciding whether to play the 10 or another spade in this situation is a demonstrable bridge reason. If we're satisfied that's what the pause was about, there's no reason to adjust. If we're satisfied the pause wasn't for a demonstrable bridge reason, then we need to consider the other conditions for an adjustment - did it damage an innocent opponent, and could he have known at the time that it could work to his benefit?

Given the facts as stated, would you accept South's statement that he was considering whether to play the ten? And do you consider that South could have known a BIT would mislead an opponent? I presume there is no question as to whether East is an innocent opponent.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2011-July-15, 07:32, said:

Given the facts as stated, would you accept South's statement that he was considering whether to play the ten? And do you consider that South could have known a BIT would mislead an opponent? I presume there is no question as to whether East is an innocent opponent.

I'd want to have been there to make that decision. That's why I carefully avoided giving a definite answer!

[lamford]

 Free, on 2011-July-15, 07:21, said:

Btw, something else I've been thinking about: why did South claim after winning the ♠K? He could've played for +1 by playing a small ♠ from dummy, trying to fool East twice.

I guess he thought 5C making would be a matchpoints top (it was); and he had already established that West had shown an odd number of spades, so East's duck must have placed him with xxx. I don't think the TD addressed that issue; do you think it is material to the ruling? Perhaps South wanted to chortle as soon as possible after East's "mistake". But then if I use words like chortle, gnasher will assume that I am not objective.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-July-13, 10:21, said:

I am impressed with your methods which allow you to distinguish between 5-4-3-1 and 3-4-5-1 with a discard; no doubt there are some such methods, but not at the club in question which is the only relevant thing. From a bridge point of view this is a tough play for East, not at IMPs where he will just win and play a diamond, but at matchpoints, where it looks like the auction will be the same everywhere. How do you plan to signal here?

There is the common sense method of discards. Holding a 5-card suit and knowing from dummy that no other player can hold 5 cards in that suit, many players would regard a discard from that suit as safe and informative. By inference the discard is likely to be from a 5-card suit as a discard from Jxx under KQ10x would eliminate the guess position (with Axx over the KQ10x) you mention.

 mrdct, on 2011-July-13, 20:53, said:

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple:

• No demonstrable bridge reason; and
  
• Could've known it could work to his advantage.

I think we tick both boxes here, so I'm adjusting the result to 5♣-1.

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple, but they are not always quite so simple to apply in practice to a particular case.

Even assuming the hesitation is deemed to be an infraction, you seem to have missed out some of your workings to explain how you arrive at your adjustment.

Law 12B said:

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

So in this case, what would have been the expectation had the alleged infraction not occurred? Well this alert East had clearly recognised the potential gain from ducking. He would also have noted that partner had not discarded a spade (so presumably does not hold five) and would duck anyway. In that case, the alleged infraction has not caused any damage.

Alternatively, the TD might judge that East would probably (rather than definitely) have ducked if South's play has been in tempo. Now if you believe that South's pause was an infraction, the correct adjustment is a weighted score, say 75% of 5♣= + 25% of 5♣-1.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2011-July-17, 15:37, said:

There is the common sense method of discards. Holding a 5-card suit and knowing from dummy that no other player can hold 5 cards in that suit, many players would regard a discard from that suit as safe and informative. By inference the discard is likely to be from a 5-card suit as a discard from Jxx under KQ10x would eliminate the guess position (with Axx over the KQ10x) you mention.

The problem with a spade discard is that it could also help declarer, if he does have a guess in the suit. South will know that West does not have Jxx. Playing simple methods with high encouraging, East will only conclude that his partner has a high diamond, and it seems that he would actually win the ace most of the time if he were not deceived, if only because 1-2-2-8 is more frequent than 3-2-0-8, and because ducking can only save the ovetrick. But I agree with you that, if we decide there is an infraction, we have to make a judgement on what would happen without it; I submit that it is 80% of 5♣ - 1 and 20% of 5♣ =. I have since polled a number of players of average ability with both hands, and all played high in both cases, of course. They did so instantly when holding a singleton, and took an average of 2-3 seconds with xxx opposite KQ10x - as would all average players with anything remotely resembling a suit combination.