Join Bridge Winners
Hesitation blues

West
7
10632
1093
KQ972
North
1042
QJ5
QJ4
AJ104
East
KQJ98653
K987
A
South
A
A4
K87652
8653
D

 

East found himself in 4 -North-South did not bid.  The narrative, as told me me - I was not present at the table: "S led  to Declarer’s A. Declarer led K, taken by S who now returned another diamond and Declarer cleared trumps and ran a few more. He then led 7 and S tanked before playing low. On regaining the lead, Declarer laid down K and so went down one. After they left the table, Declarer asked me “Did you notice that pause” and I said I did. The upshot is that we are applying for an amended score on the basis that there is no justification for a tank with South's holding and no conceivable hand of Declarer’s on which it could be justified. Declarer is confident that had South played low in tempo he would have led low  the second time. South has a rather shady reputation".

Well, to cut a long story short, the appeal was rejected and the East-West pair was told "when there is a pause, as the non-offending pair asserts, and there is no valid reason or justification for that pause, and the pause misleads Declarer, that the offended party has no right to redress via an amended score, unless the pause is accepted as deliberate".  East-West were somewhat upset by the ruling and it does not seem right to me either - how would you rule in this situation?

18 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top