Bidding plan with monster

[Cascade]

A good way to "ruffle" someone is by intentionally playing slow/fast.

 

One of googles definitions for disconcert:

 

upset: cause to lose one's composure

 

Upset and piss off are closely synonymous to me. I could have said "piss off to the point that they lose their composure" I suppose. I was not trying to word my post very carefully to withstand scrutiny :)

 

I think it is CLEAR that the intent of that stated law is that you cannot play at a certain speed to deliberately "disconcert" your opponent such as taking a minute for every play when the opponent asks you to speed up in order to spite them, etc. I am surprised jdonn of all people agrees with me :angry:

And losing their composure is exactly what you are trying to induce by playing super fast. You want them to lose their composure so that you will gain information that would not be available to you if they maintained their composure.

 

The combined affect of L73D1 and L74C7 is that you are required to try to play in normal tempo. Any advantage that you have gained from not doing so, especially if you have deliberately varied your tempo to try and get an advantage, has not been fairly obtained.

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

L73D1

varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

L74C7

[rogerclee]

I'll make forcing heart bids and will reach 7♥ if I get a heart raise, 7NT if I don't (will bid 7♥ if partner keeps bidding diamonds and spades too).

 

In the play, say partner has a stiff heart and ♣Axx. I'll cash ♥AK very quickly, and then shift to the ♣J at lightning speed to read the tempo.

Leaving aside the comments about the ethics or legality of this line, in my view it is simply bad bridge :)

 

No good player would ever twitch (or cover) with the club Q. It is simply impossible that you bid 7N on a hand on which you would be taking a finesse this early AND it is important to cover. A good player will play low in tempo rather than even think about the play, just on instinct (which is internalized experience).

 

And I would hate to have to try to read WHY a less-than-expert opp twitched. Maybe it was because he was expecting another heart. Maybe it was because he was thinking about giving count. Maybe he was thinking about the colour to repaint the living room walls.

 

And all along, we are committing to a line before we have tested all of the side suits, which may actually give us a good technical edge: we find out, for example, that hearts break 4-2... combine this with inferences as to other suit lengths, and we may be able to infer which way the clubs break, and then hook through length. Not to mention that maybe an opp wiill pitch a small club (or 2) on the run of the hearts.

Oh, I never said I thought it was a great line :angry:. I agree that cashing all the other suits dry first is better to get a count.

 

I posted this line mostly out of fun, since I miss poorbridge updates :blink:.

 

I am not interested in defending the line in question as ethical or not. I am interested in finding out whether or not it is ethical. My initial survey of the laws led me to believe that it is certainly not illegal, and not even unethical. The posts here have also led me to believe that it is neither unethical nor illegal.

 

However, to be fair, I consulted a local player who serves on national appeals committees frequently. He believes that intent is the key here, and that the declarer's intent is to gain information he could not have gotten normally. He thinks that you'd never get called for it, but that it is probably unethical/illegal.

[TimG]

"dis·con·cert /ˌdɪskənˈsɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-kuhn-surt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to disturb the self-possession of; perturb; ruffle: Her angry reply disconcerted me completely.

2. to throw into disorder or confusion; disarrange: He changed his mind and disconcerted everybody's plans. "

I like the second definition in this case: to throw into confusion. Which is exactly the intent behind the lightning fast play in question.

[Guest Jlall]

A good way to "ruffle" someone is by intentionally playing slow/fast.

 

One of googles definitions for disconcert:

 

upset: cause to lose one's composure

 

Upset and piss off are closely synonymous to me. I could have said "piss off to the point that they lose their composure" I suppose. I was not trying to word my post very carefully to withstand scrutiny :)

 

I think it is CLEAR that the intent of that stated law is that you cannot play at a certain speed to deliberately "disconcert" your opponent such as taking a minute for every play when the opponent asks you to speed up in order to spite them, etc. I am surprised jdonn of all people agrees with me :)

And losing their composure is exactly what you are trying to induce by playing super fast. You want them to lose their composure so that you will gain information that would not be available to you if they maintained their composure.

 

The combined affect of L73D1 and L74C7 is that you are required to try to play in normal tempo. Any advantage that you have gained from not doing so, especially if you have deliberately varied your tempo to try and get an advantage, has not been fairly obtained.

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

L73D1

varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

L74C7

OK going to make 1 more post on this subject to try and sum up what I have been trying to say (but I think not doing a good job).

 

First, there are 3 laws which have been cited as evidence that you cannot play a hand quickly in an attempt to give the opponents a problem:

 

1) 7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of

disconcerting an opponent.

 

2) It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 

3) A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

 

So, going in reverse order...

 

On 3) This is not an attempt to mislead an opponent with the haste of your play; you are not trying to misrepresent your holding. They make specific mention in this law of HESITATING before you play a singleton. This law clearly does not apply to this situation.

 

On 2) it is a stretch to even bring this law up here. Tempo variations being beneficial to your side/ taking inference from this at your own risk clearly is talking about situations where you think for a moment and have nothing to think about. Maybe you were distracted for a second, etc, and it is not required to play in an even tempo, but you should be careful that this kind of thing does not happen when it may be beneficial to your side, ie if declarer leads up to a KJ and you break tempo for no reason. This will be beneficial to your side. When it talks about taking inference at your own risk etc it makes it clear these are the situations it is talking about, not when playing quickly may cause an opponent to have a problem. That is a completely different situation. Again I cannot see this law being applied to this situation, it is just not what it is talking about.

 

1) is certainly the closest to being relevant to this situation, or so it not mean.

 

What I am saying is that this law is talking about playing or bidding purposely slow or fast just to fluster/ruffle/disconcert, whatever word you want to use, your opponent with your speed of play.

 

Why do I think this?

 

-If this law was not talking about this there would not be anything making it illegal to take 2 minutes per play when you have 1 board left and 50 minutes left on the clock simply to "disconcert" your opponent who wants a smoke break or whatever.

 

-This law is listed under the "conduct and etiquette" portion of the rules which includes things such as law 8 prohibitting "leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." It is not listed under, for example, the variations in tempo part of the laws. If the laws wanted to disallow playing at a certain tempo to gain information based on your opponent's reactions, they would probably state it explicitly in the variations in tempo section, not the conduct and etiquette portion. It is very poor ETIQUETTE, however, to fluster your opponents on purpose with something they have no control over (like you taking a long time for every play for no reason).

 

Why else do I think it does not apply to playing quickly to gain information about the opponent's play?

 

-The opponents can control the tempo of their plays. If they need to think about what they are going to do early on, they can do so. They are only going to give up information when the jack is led quickly at trick 2 if their tempo is uneven in that situation. It's not like they must play small instantly without the queen, they can use whatever their normal tempo is in this situation. It is not like by playing fast you are forcing them to give you information, you are just increasing the chance they will make an error if they want to try and match your tempo. This is your advantage for being able to think fast if they are going to try and match your tempo, and if they can't keep up they should slow down the tempo themselves.

 

-Do you really think the laws would prohibit you from increasing the chance that the opponent makes a mistake and covers the jack because your tempo was fast? Frankly, I believe that declarer can play at whatever tempo he wants as long as he is not misleading the opponents. There is not case of declarer misleading the opponents in this case. The defenders are similar, but they must be careful not to transmit UI to their partners, a problem that declarer doesn't have to worry about. The tempo laws are for cases of UI and deception, and explicitly say so. If you really think declarer must always play at the same pace on every trick then you have not seen many big tanks in the middle of hands before...or you think they are unlawful (gee, thinking is unlawful?).

 

-The "infraction" people see is playing quickly to guage what LHO does (lawful information, taken at own risk) and then use that information. At no point is your goal simply to disconcert them. But this law mentions only playing quickly to disconcert the opponents as being the infraction. The goal of this play would be to guage LHO's reaction, not to disconcert them. LHO being caught off guard and breaking tempo does not equal them being disconcerted.

 

I really do not think this is close, and agree with jdonn's original post regarding this. This is a very misapplied rule. Playing quickly when you are running winners trying to pseudo squeeze LHO and hope hes not watching, or leading a jack through LHO, or whatever, is common practice and not illegal. It is up to the defenders to maintain their own tempo and not give away the show with the way they act. It is up to the defenders to foresee what is coming. If they cannot do this it is their shortcoming, it is not incumbent upon declarer to play slower so that they have time to think about what they want to do.

 

Frankly, I cannot see making the argument that this is the declarer's obligation to look after his opponent's. I also cannot see making the argument that when declarer is about to lead from dummy or his hand he has to play in an even tempo ever.

[Cascade]

If you are not playing quickly to disconcert your opponent then why not play in normal tempo and take your inferences from what they do.

 

From what you say it seems clear to me that you are trying to gain an advantage from disconcerting your opponent. You want your opponent to be flustered and in that fluster to give away valuable information. I think this comes within the realm of disconcerting and therefore specifically against Law 74C7.

[jdonn]

(74) C. Violations of Procedure

The following are considered violations of procedure:

.

.

.

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of

disconcerting an opponent.

 

Conduct and etiquette are part of the Laws.

This means you cannot play slowly or super fast just to piss off the opponents.

From dictionary.com

 

"dis·con·cert /ˌdɪskənˈsɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-kuhn-surt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to disturb the self-possession of; perturb; ruffle: Her angry reply disconcerted me completely.

2. to throw into disorder or confusion; disarrange: He changed his mind and disconcerted everybody's plans. "

 

I'd suggest that you were trying to ruffle your opponents if you deliberately played unusually quickly in order to gain something from their tempo.

 

I think that is exactly what the laws don't allow you to do.

LOL I swear I also went to dictionary.com today and looked up disconcert! The difference is I completed my assignment and looked up ruffle. Also from dictionary.com, the relevant definition is "to disturb, vex, or irritate".

 

Uh, that looks almost exactly like a synonym for "piss off"! Anyway I'm sort of tired of this. It is not like you are playing fast so they will drop their cards on the table, it's so that you can read the smoothness of their duck. Justin's point that this law is from the section on etiquette is completely relevant to show this is not the intended meaning of the law. Don't know what else to say.

[Cascade]

(74) C. Violations of Procedure

The following are considered violations of procedure:

.

.

.

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of

disconcerting an opponent.

 

Conduct and etiquette are part of the Laws.

This means you cannot play slowly or super fast just to piss off the opponents.

From dictionary.com

 

"dis·con·cert /ˌdɪskənˈsɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-kuhn-surt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object) 1. to disturb the self-possession of; perturb; ruffle: Her angry reply disconcerted me completely.

2. to throw into disorder or confusion; disarrange: He changed his mind and disconcerted everybody's plans. "

 

I'd suggest that you were trying to ruffle your opponents if you deliberately played unusually quickly in order to gain something from their tempo.

 

I think that is exactly what the laws don't allow you to do.

LOL I swear I also went to dictionary.com today and looked up disconcert! The difference is I completed my assignment and looked up ruffle. Also from dictionary.com, the relevant definition is "to disturb, vex, or irritate".

 

Uh, that looks almost exactly like a synonym for "piss off"! Anyway I'm sort of tired of this. It is not like you are playing fast so they will drop their cards on the table, it's so that you can read the smoothness of their duck. Justin's point that this law is from the section on etiquette is completely relevant to show this is not the intended meaning of the law. Don't know what else to say.

"pissed off

–noun Slang: Vulgar. angry or annoyed. " dictionary.com

 

I am sure i can be ruffled or disconcerted without getting angry or annoyed.

 

If you are good at reading tells then you might be able to get a better read on me when I am disconcerted. This may be a legitimate poker tactic it is not a legitimate bridge tactic.

[pclayton]

Dude, where's my thread? :P