[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-April-12, 15:41, said:

I think that a BIT with a singleton, even if the player did not think it was a singleton, has to be punished.

"Off with his head!"

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-12, 15:41, said:

I think that a BIT with a singleton, even if the player did not think it was a singleton, has to be punished.

I think that a BIT with a singleton, even if the player did not think it was a singleton, has to lead to rectification of any damage.

[blackshoe]

So is the infraction that he broke tempo, or that he failed to sort his hand correctly?

[JLOGIC]

I know this is the laws forum so this opinion might not be that welcome, but in real life no one who has played bridge before tanks for a minute before stiffing their king. In real life imo many players think for a long time like they are fake squeezed.

Instead of playing for the drop then trying to win the director ruling (and I have only seen someone win this kind of spot a few times out of many), just take the finesse when this type of opp huddles and pitches their diamond, and go for the drop when they do it smoothly.

My opinion on the law aspect of this is that the director should change the result, but generally this does not happen.

Look at it this way, people all of the sudden need time to "think" for a long time before pitching a diamond without the king. How many people need time to "think" for a long time when they have the king? All of the sudden these players realize this IS a tempo sensitive situation, they don't want to give away that they have stiffed their king. But somehow with 2 small many people need a lot of time to think.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-13, 07:00, said:

So is the infraction that he broke tempo, or that he failed to sort his hand correctly?

Kibitzers might appreciate it if there were a law requiring players to sort their hands. But until there is, we only have the tempo issue to rule on.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-April-12, 13:58, said:

Barmar has a point As long as you have two or more cards in a suit, I suppose you can usually demonstrate a bridge-reason for tanking. For example if Roy Welland had played his pips more carefully against Helness, he might not have needed to appeal.

What if you take "The tanker believed that he had a Bridge Reason" argument to an extreme? What about a singleton?

How would Barmar rule in this case. You hold ♠ A 3 ♥ Q J 2 ♦ 6 5 4 3 ♣ 6 5 4 3
Against RHO's 6♠ contract, you lead a ♣ to declarer's ace.
Decarer immediately leads a ♥ towards dummy's ♥ A T 9 8 7 6 . After thought you insert the queen and dummy wins with the ace.
Now declarer leads a ♥ from dummy and ruffs with ♠2.
You are about to follow suit, when your ♥ J 2 transmogrify into ♦ J 2
This kind of thing may never happen to you but for me it's a frequent occurrence
You over-ruff gratefully with the ♠3 and cash your ace of trumps (before partner has a chance to revoke).
Declarer complains to the director that, although he could have ruffed higher in complete safety, he felt there was no need to bother, after your hesitation.
Should the director judge that you had a demonstrable bridge-reason for your hesitation? (You certainly believed that you had one).
And how should the director rule?

Who do you think you are, lamford?

The way I might deal with this is to say that the "extra care" you have to take in tempo-sensitive situations includes being careful about seeing what's in your hand. The hearts didn't magically transmogriphy into diamonds, you screwed up when you sorted you hand. And this carelessness eventually led to the misleading break in tempo.

[billw55]

So if I'm playing against Justin and I need to blank a king I should ...

kidding of course

[lamford]

barmar, on 2013-April-13, 12:58, said:

Who do you think you are, lamford?

The way I might deal with this is to say that the "extra care" you have to take in sensitive situations includes being careful about

I didn't post that example! The way I might deal with this is to say that the "extra care" you have to take in sensitive situations includes being careful about who you blame for a post.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-April-15, 07:10, said:

I didn't post that example!

I know. My question should be parsed as "Do you think you're lamford?", not "Lamford, who do you think you are?" It was a joke about the fact that he posted a hypothetical with a corner case, usually your specialty.