[wank]

Aqx under kjtxxxxx and rho marked with the other 2 cards. Rho leads towards dummy. Is it legal to hesitate to let him know you have the ace?

[pran]

wank, on 2013-November-30, 03:25, said:

Aqx under kjtxxxxx and rho marked with the other 2 cards. Rho leads towards dummy. Is it legal to hesitate to let him know you have the ace?

Are you kidding?

[jallerton]

It's legal to hesitate if you have a genuine bridge decision as to which card you should play.

It's not legal to hesitate if the sole purpose of the hesitation is to deceive declarer.

[Fluffy]

tehnically speaking you are not deceiving him IMO, but I've always though this was ilegal.

[pran]

jallerton, on 2013-November-30, 04:16, said:

It's legal to hesitate if you have a genuine bridge decision as to which card you should play.

It's not legal to hesitate if the sole purpose of the hesitation is to deceive declarer.

- deceive an opponent or (as defender) communicating any information to partner.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-November-30, 05:09, said:

tehnically speaking you are not deceiving him IMO, but I've always though this was ilegal.

Yes, quite. I am really surprised that Cyberyeti asked. I hope it was because a friend of his was insisting that it was acceptable to do this.

[gnasher]

Some of the respondents seem to be missing the point. The stated purpose of the pause is not to convey information to partner, and it's not to deceive an opponent. The objective is to give an opponent truthful information.

If it's done in order to gain an advantage it's illegal, because "players should be particularly careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side." (Law 73D1)

[blackshoe]

The object seems to be to give the declarer truthful but incomplete information. What's declarer going to think if he gets the message? "Where's the queen?" of course. So if your ploy talks him out of playing the jack you've perpetrated an illegal deception.

Bottom line: if you want declarer to know you have the ace, play it.

[wank]

exactly, the point was that you're not deceiving anyone and you're not doing it to communicate with partner, though as in many situations, partner may get unauthorised information, but that's his problem.

you're showing the ace and you have the ace, so imo it's warping language to say declarer is deceived. so which law does this contravene? the line about being careful when variations in tempo may work to your advantage is a general warning, surely, rather than a specific law allowing redress when such happens without it being otherwise illegal.

you may or not think this is revolting, but that's not the point is it? the issue is whether there's actually a law against it, or if it's one of these things that just contravenes certain [most?] players' personal codes of ethics.

[ggwhiz]

A more complete scenario is needed. With side entries, depending on the contract etc. it's not about the Ace at all, it's about the Queen and a hesitation should deny it. One of my early mentors was caught napping in a similar spot so he played the Queen!

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2013-November-30, 07:35, said:

Yes, quite. I am really surprised that Cyberyeti asked. I hope it was because a friend of his was insisting that it was acceptable to do this.

Surprised I asked what ? not my question.

[gnasher]

wank, on 2013-November-30, 10:52, said:

the line about being careful when variations in tempo may work to your advantage is a general warning, surely, rather than a specific law allowing redress when such happens without it being otherwise illegal.

No, it's a Law like all the other Laws, and you're obliged to obey it. If you break this Law and gain an advantage from doing so, it's subject to adjustment. If you knowingly break this Law with the intention of gaining an advantage, it's cheating.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-01, 16:30, said:

Surprised I asked what ? not my question.

I am very sorry. I don't know why I thought it was you.

[billw55]

Interesting. A possibly related example: in a book by Frank Stewart, he gives an example wherein declarer "takes his time, making sure opponent can count him for" some particular shape which he does in fact have, in order to accomplish some other deception. Stewart does not discuss any ethical issues. What do you think? Sorry I don't have the full hand at my immediate disposal.

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2013-December-02, 15:03, said:

Interesting. A possibly related example: in a book by Frank Stewart, he gives an example wherein declarer "takes his time, making sure opponent can count him for" some particular shape which he does in fact have, in order to accomplish some other deception. Stewart does not discuss any ethical issues. What do you think? Sorry I don't have the full hand at my immediate disposal.

I think that maybe there is a difference between this and the OP, because if the pause is taken when it is your turn to play to a trick, you give the impression that you are thinking about which card to play to the trick.

[PhilKing]

Someone has hacked into Wank's account imo.

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2013-December-02, 15:03, said:

Interesting. A possibly related example: in a book by Frank Stewart, he gives an example wherein declarer "takes his time, making sure opponent can count him for" some particular shape which he does in fact have, in order to accomplish some other deception. Stewart does not discuss any ethical issues. What do you think?

I think it's just as illegal as the example in the original post, and for the same reason. Declarer is failing to "be particularly careful when variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side".

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-December-01, 17:58, said:

No, it's a Law like all the other Laws, and you're obliged to obey it.

Except that "be particularly careful" is a very subjective requirement. You can't really say that this is a law like the ones about bids/plays out of turn.

Of course, it's not the only subjective law. It's more like Law 74, with requirements like "maintain a courteous attitude at all times."

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2013-December-02, 19:31, said:

Except that "be particularly careful" is a very subjective requirement.

Yes. But in cases like the ones under discussion, *you* know whether you are being very careful, or doing quite the opposite. Maybe you can get away with it, but this does not make it any less cheating. (Obviously I don't mean you in particular, barmar).

[EricK]

Playing low quickly when you have the ace but not the queen when declarer leads towards the KJ in dummy (thus suggesting you don't have anything to think about) would also seem to be cheating - but has anybody ever got an adjustment in that scenario? I imagine it's more likely the defender would get congratulated for not giving the game away with a tell-tale pause.