[BLML] Automatic ruling?

doghoward at aol.com doghoward at aol.com
Fri May 28 17:26:45 CEST 2010




-----Original Message-----
From: PO Sundelin <posundelin at yahoo.se>
To: blml at rtflb.org
Sent: Fri, May 28, 2010 2:51 am
Subject: [BLML] Automatic ruling?




South had Q98763 to KT5 and played small to king which lost to East´s ace. On a  later trick to queen West showed out.
 
Declarer called the TD and claimed that West had broken tempo before following to the first trick. Dummy agreed, West did not agree, but East had not observed any tempo break.
 
Is there an automatic ruling when facts are disagreed? Which way? Or does it depend on how experienced or established the players are? 
 
Or - is it (as theTD stated) common practice to assume tempo break if one side says so, and thus in this cae rule that declarer would have finessed ("most favourable..")

***********************************
I am a naive lurker, but when we look at cases like this and the likelihood of a hesitation, shouldn't we look at whether the hesitation would have had any bridge logic to it?  And here, declarer is claiming that west hesitated -- presumably thought before playing -- with Jx of trumps when a low card was led towards K10x?  Unless there were very subtle indications for this -- a psychological ploy in context of the whole hand, perhaps -- who would make that play, other than perhaps the newest of novices?   

Ed Shapiro





_______________________________________________
lml mailing list
lml at rtflb.org
ttp://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20100528/3ce86252/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list