[FrancesHinden]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-12, 01:24, said:

I recall an incident many years ago when I was a student. The suit in question was Ax opposite KJxxxxx with the long suit in dummy.

Declarer played the ace then the small one. There was a long hesitation from the next hand followed by the play of a small card from a player who was known to me to hesitate routinely with singletons.

Declarer (I was dummy) duly finessed and lost and the director was called.

The ruling was that whether the man held x or Qx he could have nothing possible to think about so there was no adjustment.

The original case that started this post is similar. Dummy had J98xx and declarer had bid the suit. There could be no possible reason for thinking whatever the holding in second seat, so there is no way declarer could have been misled, so there should be no adjustment.

[campboy]

kenberg, on 2011-June-11, 07:06, said:

Long ago Victor Mollo had an entertaining Bridge in the Menagerie story on this theme. One of the characters, Walter the Walrus I seem to recall, was being accused of hesitating when he did (yes, did, that's not a typo) have a legitimate reason. The idea was that his opponent would know that WW was good enough to prepare his choice of plays in advance, therefore the only reason for hesitating could be that he was trying to mislead the opponent. So in the current situation, WW would hesitate if he held the ace, expecting his opponent to believe that he surely would duck smoothly if he had the ace and, therefore, the hesitation means that he lacks the ace. Holding the Q without the ace, he would "duck" smoothly.

That doesn't sound like the Walrus. I think it might have been Charlie the Chimp.

[kenberg]

campboy, on 2011-June-12, 09:04, said:

That doesn't sound like the Walrus. I think it might have been Charlie the Chimp.

You are probably right. My apologies to WW.

[barmar]

pirate22, on 2011-June-12, 01:29, said:

very interesting we have words to convey the same thing,
but there must be a difference..

Tank--Tanking.
Coffee housing
Hesitating
Thinking
regards

Tank and Thinking are generally used to refer to cases where you actually have a difficult decision. Coffee Housing is when you try to mislead the opponent with your tempo. And Hesitating is most general, it just refers to the tempo without regard for the reason.

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-June-12, 05:36, said:

The original case that started this post is similar. Dummy had J98xx and declarer had bid the suit. There could be no possible reason for thinking whatever the holding in second seat, so there is no way declarer could have been misled, so there should be no adjustment.

Should you think about a PP for hesitating where there is no bridge reason even if you don't adjust, purely to get them out of the habit ?

I thought the two cases were similar, the only possible holdings you might think for even a fraction about are AQx or AQxx, so you're not going to mislead declarer here.

[nige1]

This was the deal in the original post. The play was a bit peculiar...
♥2 Q K A
♥9 3 ♠5 ♥J
♠7 3 6 A.
♠2 K 4 9

---

FrancesHinden, on 2011-June-12, 05:36, said:

The original case that started this post is similar. Dummy had J98xx and declarer had bid the suit. There could be no possible reason for thinking whatever the holding in second seat, so there is no way declarer could have been misled, so there should be no adjustment.

Suppose instead West feared the hand was something like this. Would West then have a bridge reason for hesitating? To defeat tthe contract, West would then need to rise with ♦A and cash ♠Q and ♥T. West could have concluded that this layout was unlikely and ducked. Even if Frances deems such reconstructions impossible, surely South should be protected if he argues that West could have such a bridge reason for hesitating with ♦Ax(x) but never with ♦Qx(x)? In general, from both sides' point of view, a bridge reason more than adequate for an ordinary player may not completely satisfy a world-class player

Even if I haven't got the hands and pips quite right, you get the general idea. ..

---

[

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2011-June-11, 21:37, said:

This kind of thing is considered OK in rubber bridge, where it's every man for himself. But the Law Givers decided that duplicate bridge should be more civilized and intellectual, where we just play the cards, not psychological games.

This is absolutely not true. Rubber bridge players are, for the most part, unimpeachably ethical. Probably more so than duplicate players, because they would consider it quite wrong to take another man's money through coffeehousing or other deliberately deceptive bahaviour. Not to mention that even if they weren't banned from the club, they would not find anyone willing to play with them.

I am sorry that you have had this experience at rubber bridge, but I promise you that if you find another club you will be very unlikely to find similar standards there.

[phil_20686]

Was this on vu graph?

Often when there are screens the operator cannot see one side of the screen so you dont know whether it was defender or declarer who hesititated. That seems much the most likely explanation.

If it was on BBO he was mostly like stirring his tea or something.

[glen]

phil_20686, on 2011-June-17, 05:42, said:

Was this on vu graph? ...

Op never confirmed that s/he determined by communication with the vugraph operator that there actually was a tank, and until s/he does that, this thread is hypothetical, and is merely a discussion of theory

[billw55]

bluecalm, on 2011-June-11, 15:58, said:

I am completely serious. I think people should be allowed to think to mislead. They aren't according to laws though so of course trying to break rules of the game to take advantage is unethical. I just happen to think the rules of the game should be different but I certainly can see a point of them being as they are now.

wickedbid1, on 2011-June-11, 21:04, said:

If one allows all manner of bluffs, a pard on defence will soon be able to learn his/her pard's mannerism tendencies... seriously unbalancing the game for pick up partnerships & declarers.

Therein lies the problem. The misleading turns rapidly into illegal communication.

[nige1]

pirate22, on 2011-June-10, 18:54, said:

Now declarer elected to play 7 diamonds this is when west tanked he held q5 diam-or A5 or 54 or a54.

Somebody down-voted this interesting post! Such actions may inhibit new posters.

glen, on 2011-June-17, 06:25, said:

Op never confirmed that s/he determined by communication with the vugraph operator that there actually was a tank, and until s/he does that, this thread is hypothetical, and is merely a discussion of theory

Glenn is right (although priate22 still poses an interesting theoretical question with a variety of answers -- see Frances Hinden's post). Pirate22 could ask the viewgraph operator to confirm the alleged hesitation. However, no director seems to have been called to establish the complete facts, so we mustn't cast aspersions on the players.

bluecalm, on 2011-June-11, 15:58, said:

I am completely serious. I think people should be allowed to think to mislead. They aren't according to laws though so of course trying to break rules of the game to take advantage is unethical. I just happen to think the rules of the game should be different but I certainly can see a point of them being as they are now.

Somebody down-voted this reasonable suggestion!

wickedbid1, on 2011-June-11, 21:04, said:

The big problems occur not so much when one tanks, as there there is often more than one possible reason, but when one plays (or bids) unusually brisky compared to one's normal tempo. A lot of players also "flip" a singleton out of their hand as they play it. The only real solution to these sorts of things is to play & bid in tempo as much as u can, and occasionally allow a tank to pass by without comment. If one allows no tanks, thinking goes away -- bad idea. If one allows all manner of bluffs, a pard on defence will soon be able to learn his/her pard's mannerism tendencies... seriously unbalancing the game for pick up partnerships & declarers.

billw55, on 2011-June-17, 06:40, said:

Therein lies the problem. The misleading turns rapidly into illegal communication.

But wickedbid1 and billw55 seem to have won the argument