[BLML] Automatic ruling?
agot at ulb.ac.be
Fri May 28 18:02:19 CEST 2010
doghoward at aol.com a écrit :
> -----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
AG : If I read the conditions well, West hesitated with a singleton, not
You're taking it the wrong way round.
If there is any bridge logic for the hesitation, there will be no
penalty at all.
This logic might in some occurrences be rather thin (e.g. putting up Q
from Qxx in front of Kxx to avoid partner being endplayed from AJ10 -
you'll have to ascertain whether this was plausible).
When there isn't, then we're required to decide whether there was any
hesitation (which will then be considered misleading).
More information about the Blml