[shugart24]

Declarer leads at an ace queen on the board. LHO breaks tempo and eventually plays a small card. Declarer plays up with the ace. Turns out LHO had a singleton and RHO has Kx.....what, if any is the penalty

[awm]

It seems like declarer guessed correctly? One could admonish LHO for hesitating with a singleton, but I don't see why there would be a "penalty" unless this is a pattern of behaviour by LHO over a long period of time.

[paulg]

Law 73 addresses playing in tempo and deception (http://www.worldbrid...plicate-bridge/).

Hesitating with a singleton is usually a bad idea and carries risks. However, it's a common occurrence on BBO due to many factors.

[smerriman]

I doubt LHO was trying to pretend he was thinking of playing the king If online, more likely that the hesitation was unrelated to bridge.

[pescetom]

The more interesting question is what happens if Declarer plays the Q and RHO covers with K. Director is empowered by 73E2 to adjust the score if determines that Declarer drew a false inference from the hesitation and that opponent has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action and could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit.

[mikl_plkcc]

paulg, on 2025-March-17, 09:18, said:

Law 73 addresses playing in tempo and deception (http://www.worldbrid...plicate-bridge/).

Hesitating with a singleton is usually a bad idea and carries risks. However, it's a common occurrence on BBO due to many factors.

I once hesitated, as a defender, with a singleton at trick 1, and the declarer blamed me.

[blackshoe]

Implicit in the game of bridge is that you are entitled to think when you need to think. Explicit in the laws of bridge is that undue (most people, including directors, overlook or ignore that word) hesitation or haste in bidding or playing constrains the partnership. So you're entitled to think, but you're not entitled to think.. Bridge is a terrible game.

[mycroft]

If that happened in the YC (or anywhere else in the EBU), I would call the director and "see if there was a problem". Sure, you might be ruled against, but:

EBU White Book, chapter 8.73.2, my emphasis said:

Pauses at trick one

• Pause by declarer before playing from dummy
  A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice.
  
• Pause by third hand
  Similarly, a reasonable pause by third hand should not usually be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. No disclaimer is necessary.
  
  The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should rarely entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one. This is especially the case if declarer has failed to pause before playing from dummy.

If they believe they have been misled, they can call the director. If they believe they have the right to give you a hard time instead, *you* can call the director.