barmar, on 2019-December-13, 11:21, said:
But the purpose of that Law is to prevent coffee-housing -- the player must not try to mislead an opponent with their tempo. E.g. the player shouldn't stop to think if they don't have the Ace.
And isn't that exactly what happened here? From declarer's perspective, what else could East have been thining about except whether to play the Ace?
On the other hand, why would anyone even consider playing the Ace when you lead towards a Jack in a NT contract? What 's the rush, and you could crash partner's honor? So maybe declarer should (correctly) infer that East was thinking about something else, like what to signal.
But to avoid this problem, players are expected to plan ahead so they can maintain consistent tempo to the extent possible. If you have the Ace before dummy's King, you decide early on what you'll do if declarer leads towards it. If you decide to duck, you then duck smoothly.
This isn't always possible, sometimes things change unexpectedly and you have to revise your plans quickly. This is why the Law allows you to hesitate if you have a "demonstrable bridge reason".
That's a really stupid law. It's completely inequitable.
If you have a reservation with a defender breaking tempo to misrepresent their hand, then surely you have an issue with a declarer changing their line of play based on a legitimate break in tempo? If the situation really was AXX opposite TX, could defender's have called the director? If defender's were to call the director, and there was such a law to provide them with recourse, you'd have to somehow prove that declarer intended to play the 9. Good luck proving that. This is getting too deep into the realm of intent, and as any sports fan will tell you, rules that require proof of intent are always garbage and improperly officiated.
Setting aside whether you would personally do it, I know I don't, but, a break in tempo with a holding that doesn't justify it is simply gamesmanship. If you allow yourself to get duped by it, well, that's the way things go sometimes. If you think this sounds bad, well, it sounds no worse than reading into a break in tempo. If you break tempo and opponent makes a decision after the break in tempo that they wouldn't make without the BIT, and it's the only way to make the contract, that's also the way things go sometimes.
It's not like declarer was forced to take any decisions here. If you choose to assume that the BIT shows the ace, then, you do so at your own peril. And so, your last post is irrelevant in my mind. Percentages that assume the Ace is in a seat, are percentages based on an exposed card I suppose. Since, that's the only way you'll be certain. To even start rationalizing with such an argument is to support taking an inference from the BIT. A subjective moral position with no objective superiority though.