[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1♥    Pass  1♠
 Pass  3♣    Pass  4♥
 Pass  Pass  Pass  


I played this hand in a tourney and after winning lead with A D I won the next trick with the A H and returned a heart, my opp spent about 1 min thinking time then, played the 10 which I tried to finesse, a few questions

1/. was this unfair hesitation

2/. was I stupid for not playing A then K anyway

[pigpenz]

where was the tournmanent? live or online....online you can never tell the guy may be taking a piss or getting a beer or something.....at a real table he might be coffee housing you. The Rules say you take inferences at your own risk....now as a director if this person was noted for doing this then ...there could be reprimands.

[Fluffy]

Hesitate is not ethic, but here it measn nothing, regardless of what holding he would had there is no point on thinking.

Althou finesing with 9 trumps is not a bad idea (its jsut a guess), here you've got a clear example of why it is teached to beginners to play always A+K: because you retain the lead, and even if ♥Q didn't drop, you can discard your ♦ loser on ♣ before opponent is able to ruff.

I've seen a couple like this before, the ruling always was like these:

For playing unethically opponents score -450, and you for playing badly score +420.

[Fluffy]

I remember the old days when I started playing on BBO, playing on a table with experts was really really hard, there weren't any tournaments nor team matches yet.

There was a lot of unnethic thinks then, most of them from players from a couple of Countries from south eastern Europe, any time I played a Q with the ace in dummy LHO would think for about 8 seconds and play low. Of course half the times it burned me into flames, cos I was thinking of being cheated constantly. In the end I came to the conclusion that in those countries, the standard play was to THINK, and they would do it always. Wich would be something like the STOP card wich we use on face to face bridge. And I though that playing that way would have some point.

Now I don't see these behaviour any more, althou I harly play any more with random opponents outsided tourneys.

[inquiry]

Someone with QTx, after you lead ace then low towards KJxx has nothing to think about. Whatever the hesitation was (poor connection, phone call, chating with a friend), it was not to decide what card to play. Play whatever you would with a normal speed play. If he is a famous coffeehouser, go up with the king. if he is a tricky devil, he MAY be hesitating to try to talk you OUT of the hook. But don't play such mind games... just note his habits if you think you will play him some more.

Ben

[luke warm]

well i learned something from this thread (which is why i don't direct online tourneys)... i always thought you were allowed to take inferences from hesitations, and if someone (for example) hesitated with a stiff they could be penalized

i've seen it, there's not much that can be done about it, but i think it's cheating... if someone has to think, that's one thing, but with a stiff?

[Double !]

CAVEAT EMPTOR

You may take any and all of the inferences from the opps hesitations you want, at your own risk. Hesitator's partner may not. Don't know what the acbl tournament procedural norm currently is regarding calling director when there is a break in tempo. Way back when our approach used to be to call director immediately---the chicken soup convention/ "it couldn't hurt".

[Winstonm]

Like virtually all other forms of Law, it is virtually impossible to "prove intent".
Other than a well-timed petit mal seizure or TIA, 99.9% of the time this is a "coffeehouse" manuever that the orchestrator believes cannot lose and on occassion may win. My advice is to ignore it, but keep it in the back of your mind when you have K108 opposite AJ9 and you lead the J through this "turkey" (Does that qualify as S.E. Europe, LoL); if he coffeehouses again, he ain't got "Her Majesty".

WinstonM

[fifee]

I live alone (with Ginger who is pictured) and its very hard to keep tempo when the phone rings, people come to the door, Ginger wants in or out, or someone asks you a question in private at the table. We all have these things happen and hesitations are unavoidable and mostly should not be a factor.

If I have an opponent who is chatting and lags between plays and bids, then best for me to find a new table.

P Anderson

[kgr]

Did you really think that LHO was hesitating with Qx when KJx is in dummy? You thought he was thinking to play the Q?
You have to assume that we was counting points, thinking how the defence should continue, ...
If you take the finesse after LHO hesitates here then it is at your own risk. Hoping for an adjustment here when the finesse is wrong, is like taking a free finesse.

No adjustment.

[jillybean]

WBF LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. Inadvertent Variations
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady
tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly
careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their
side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a
call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety,
but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by
an opponent, and at his own risk.

[reisig]

As most have said -- make your normal play, since RHO wouldn't have anything to think about anyway...so you should assume the hesitation was caused by other situations at home or private chats. However, there are many other play problems where a slight huddle can lead you astray....but this ain't it.

[paulg]

jillybean2, on Jun 6 2005, 01:16 PM, said:

WBF LAW 73 - COMMUNICATION

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. Inadvertent Variations
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady
tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly
careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their
side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a
call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety,
but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by
an opponent, and at his own risk.

However it is very important to quote the next paragraph of this Law

Quote

2. Intentional Variations

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture,  through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

So, in a f2f tourney, the director would almost certainly adjust in this situation if there was a hesitation but, as reisig says, online it should not affect your play.

Paul

[kgr]

Quote

So, in a f2f tourney, the director would almost certainly adjust in this situation if there was a hesitation but, as reisig says, online it should not affect your play.

I don't agree. In f2f you would argue that the hesitation suggests having Qx and that East hesitated between playing Q or x when KJx is in dummy?
The hesitation should not suggest anything about the trump suit.

[whereagles]

A deliberate hesitation without motive can have redress.

In this case there can be no motive to hesitate, but declarer also knows that. Playing the jack is therefore a double shot: "if it wins, I make it. If not, I call director".

[paulg]

We would all agree that deliberate hesitation has no place in the game (as the Laws state).

Probably more important is the fact that West's innocent hesitation, whilst considering lunch for instance, could still lead to an adjusted score:

Quote

Law 73 Communication

F Violation of Proprieties

2.  Player Injured by Illegal Deception
If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).

In my experience hesitating with a singleton, with no good reason, is something that Directors will adjust on every time. Clearly considering lunch (a good example) is not a good bridge reason

If the Directors believe there was deliberate intent, then they issue a penalty too.

I believe this is one of the those areas that is poorly understood by most players, and so discussions like this are very useful. It is also an interesting example of where f2f and online play would demand different plays, since one has an established hesitation and the other does not.

Paul

[luis]

Was this online or face to face? If online this was a very obvious case of connection problem, or the player going for a drink in the middle of the hand, maybe a restroom expedition, a phone call, the dog biting the cables, who knows?
As others have written there's nothing to think about with QTx when you play towards KJ so I don't think this position can be even analized. If you finsessed with 9 instead of playing for the drop it's your problem.
In a f2f expert game I'd say that the guy with Tx was trying to read some kind of trump signal from his pd.
I would actually impose a penalty procedure on declarer if he intends to say anything about this board.

Luis