Do ethics apply?

[Cascade]

Cavendish Conditions of Contest:

8. It is strongly recommended that at trick one declarer take about 15 seconds before playing to the opening lead and that the player in third seat take about 10 seconds before playing. Thereafter, significant breaks in tempo before selecting small cards will be strongly discouraged.

I think it's quite reasonable to take inference from this that in events with similar conditions of contest, a defender is free to tank for 10 seconds at trick one without fear of passing UI to partner and if a declarer fails to take his 15 seconds before playing from dummy, he would have limited scope to claim damage if RHO took no more than the balance of 25 seconds from when dummy hit the table.

1. Why would the Cavendish conditions apply in some other event?

 

2. A recommendation is not a mandate.

 

3. There is nothing in the recommendation that allows 3rd hand to use any of the balance of declarer's recommended pause.

[NickRW]

This is similar but not quite the mandate that is allowed by Law 73.

 

If players are expected to pause then a simple rule like declarer must wait 15 seconds before playing would be better than something that is discretionary as the EBU regulation appears to be.

You're right that it doesn't mandate it. However it does quite explicitly let the opening leader off the hook if 3rd hand takes 10 or so seconds after declarer fails to use the time. Which makes it tough luck on declarer if he plays quickly. So, no, its not mandated - but for declarer's own benefit the time should be taken as a matter of habit.

 

Nick

[bluecalm]

Fred, but why did you play the lowest spade anyway ?

It seems that vugraph commentators were sure that you are showing K♣.

I would think that too playing with regular pd.

[PrecisionL]

Golly, doesn't anyone play Obvious Shift at trick one? Then, there is no suit preference even with a singleton in dummy. The obvious shift on this hand is clubs and South would not signal for a club switch with Qx by discouraging a Spade continuation (which occasionally you might want).

 

We always pause 10-15 seconds as third hand and announce it if declarer plays fast from dummy at trick one. I can't believe the commentators made such an issue of it. I doubt Brad considered himself obligated to play a club, I wouldn't as signals at trick one are information, not commands.

[mrdct]

1. Why would the Cavendish conditions apply in some other event?

I used the Cavendish conditions as an example to refute your assertion that "very few regulating authorities mandate this first trick pause" and also to confirm Fred's representation as to the standard custom and practice in the "high-level circles in the USA".

 

2. A recommendation is not a mandate.

True, but the existence of such recommendations would surely offer some protection to a defender who tanked after an instant play by declarer at trick one.

 

3. There is nothing in the recommendation that allows 3rd hand to use any of the balance of declarer's recommended pause.

I think it's an inference that can be reasonably drawn.

 

Notwithstanding any local regulations made under Law 73, a fast play from dummy at trick one would by any reasonable person's assessment fall within the definition of "undue haste" and is therefore an infraction under the Laws.

[gnasher]

In fairness to me, Sontag instantly called a card from the dummy. That practice is  generally frowned upon in high-level circles in the USA (as is not signalling in tempo). I was not ready to play and figured that, since I needed at least a few seconds to think anyway, I might as well take as much time as I required - there would be a break in tempo no matter what and I didn't think the degree would be that important.

 

In fairness to Sontag, he immediately apologized and told me to take as much time as I needed. He is certainly not the sort of guy who would insta-play on purpose in the hope of creating an ethical problem for his opponents.

 

If Sontag had waited the customary 5 seconds or so, I like to think that I would have played a card then even if I was not yet certain of the card I wanted to play.

I'm not sure that it's for me to say this to you, but you shouldn't let your opponent's tempo create an ethical problem for your partner.

 

If you'll sometimes need to take 10 seconds at trick one, you should make sure that you always do. If declarer takes 5 seconds, take another 5 yourself; if he plays instantly, take 10 seconds yourself.

 

Edit: I realise, of course, that it's easier to say this than to actually do it consistently.

 

A counter-defence that I usually employ when declarer calls for a card the instant dummy goes down is to fold my own hand, ask a few questions about the auction and inform everyone that I'm just thinking about the whole hand

So:

- When you don't want to think about trick one, you fold up your cards, make your announcement, etc.

- When you do want to think about trick one, you look at your hand and say nothing.

All you've done is made absolutely sure that partner knows whether you have a problem about what to play at trick one. Do you think he'll thank you for that?

[mrdct]

So:

- When you don't want to think about trick one, you fold up your cards, make your announcement, etc.

- When you do want to think about trick one, you look at your hand and say nothing.

All you've done is made absolutely sure that partner knows whether you have a problem about what to play at trick one. Do you think he'll thank you for that?

In defence never play to trick one until at least 20 seconds after dummy is put down. I always have something to think about as the first thing I always try to do when dummy comes down is develop a picture of the shapes of partner and declarer which I do before I start to think about what signal to give or whether to play high or low etc. I'm not that fast with arithmetic so it usually takes me at least 10 seconds to get the shape possibiities narrowed down and then I start thinking about my card for this trick.

 

So:

- In all cases when declarer plays instantly to trick one, I fold my cards, query the auction, tell everyone I'm thinking, pick up my hand and find a card to play. Being consistent avoids passing UI.

[cherdanno]

But I don't think you should say "I am just thinking about the whole hand" when in fact you do have a trick one problem.

[mrdct]

But I don't think you should say "I am just thinking about the whole hand" when in fact you do have a trick one problem.

At trick one we should all have a think about the whole hand and then turn our attention to trick one problem. I promise you, your defence will improve significantly if you adopt this strategy on 100% of the hands you defend - especially the ones where you think you don't have a problem at trick one.

[gnasher]

At trick one we should all have a think about the whole hand and then turn our attention to trick one problem.  I promise you, your defence will improve significantly if you adopt this strategy on 100% of the hands you defend - especially the ones where you think you don't have a problem at trick one.

Maybe Cherdano already adopts this strategy, but has worked out that it's possible to do it without making misleading statements, indulging in pointless histrionics, or distracting the other players with questions to which he already knows the answer.

[jdonn]

In fairness to Sontag, he immediately apologized and told me to take as much time as I needed. He is certainly not the sort of guy who would insta-play on purpose in the hope of creating an ethical problem for his opponents.

I interpret this as waiving his rights regarding any UI you would transmit at trick 1. In other words if someone said that then called the director because of something Brad did at trick 2 after you think a bit at trick 1, I would not think very kindly of him...

[gnasher]

I interpret this as waiving his rights regarding any UI you would transmit at trick 1. In other words if someone said that then called the director because of something Brad did at trick 2 after you think a bit at trick 1, I would not think very kindly of him...

North is still constrained by Law 16, regardless of what declarer says. And it's not as though nobody would know.

[jdonn]

I interpret this as waiving his rights regarding any UI you would transmit at trick 1. In other words if someone said that then called the director because of something Brad did at trick 2 after you think a bit at trick 1, I would not think very kindly of him...

North is still constrained by Law 16, regardless of what declarer says. And it's not as though nobody would know.

It's not uncommon for people to waive rights, for example how many times have you seen a declarer just tell a defender to take his card back when he quickly notices a revoke?

 

I mean, what else can Sontag's comment possibly have been intended to mean?

 

I also don't understand your comment "it's not like nobody would know". Would know what? At trick 1 when declarer plays instantly from dummy, and when no one knows how much of the time taken is by the vugraph operator, no one would know anything.

[gnasher]

It's not uncommon for people to waive rights, for example how many times have you seen a declarer just tell a defender to take his card back when he quickly notices a revoke?

 

I mean, what else can Sontag's comment possibly have been intended to mean?

That may well be what he meant, but my point is that he doesn't have the authority to waive the rules about UI. Law 16 doesn't say "may not choose from amongst logical alternatives (unless the opponents say it's OK)". If something is illegal, it doesn't become legal just because RHO promises not to call the director if you do it.

 

I also don't understand your comment "it's not like nobody would know". Would know what? At trick 1 when declarer plays instantly from dummy, and when no one knows how much of the time taken is by the vugraph operator, no one would know anything.

If two players playing in some unimporant regional make a private agreement that, in order to restore equity, one of them will break the rules and the other will not call the director, nobody will know. If nobody knows, nobody will be in a position to care either.

 

If you do the same thing on Vugraph with the entire world watching, people probably will know, and some of them will care. Pauses and remarks made by the players are often reported by the Vugraph operator.

[jdonn]

It's not uncommon for people to waive rights, for example how many times have you seen a declarer just tell a defender to take his card back when he quickly notices a revoke?

 

I mean, what else can Sontag's comment possibly have been intended to mean?

That may well be what he meant, but my point is that he doesn't have the authority to waive the rules about UI. Law 16 doesn't say "may not choose from amongst logical alternatives (unless the opponents say it's OK)". If something is illegal, it doesn't become legal just because RHO promises not to call the director if you do it.

I didn't say he has legal authority, I just said that's how I interpret his comment. Further I don't see anything at all wrong with it even if the laws don't expressly give him that right. But maybe we are arguing without actually disagreeing, I'm not sure.

 

Even as far as the legal aspect, I think it would be quite reasonable to determine that either/both of his instant play from dummy and his comment to Fred means a pause by Fred doesn't transmit UI. (Not in the sense that I think his comment is an attempt to waive his rights, but that it would be hard to transmit UI from taking time after declarer invited you to do just that.)

[mycroft]

Of course declarer doesn't have the right to waive the UI. Of course, declarer can do at least two things:

- not "notice" any play that might be reversed on a UI ruling; no draw attention, no TD call, no problem;

- call the TD, point out the situation, and request that the TD waives the penalties (Law 81C5) because he fast-played from dummy (It's not like this particular declarer is known for being slow).

 

The comment at trick 1 is extraneous and irrelevant (to the Laws), but does tend to imply that declarer is going to take the first option above - and everybody knows it, and everybody knows all the subtext, and everybody's happy with it, and the game continues. I'm sure that if declarer said that, and then asked for a UI ruling, the story would have been throughout the pro community before the next session, and he'd never be given another chance to pull that trick. My guess is that he'd rather lose the Spingold than have that happen...

 

In high-level bridge, a lot of these kinds of things Just Get Worked Out. In high-level bridge, where there is a lot of respect for everyone at the table, a lot of stuff is just handled without the TD, and as long as I never hear about it, what happens happens; my guess is that where there is less respect for certain high-level players, less of this happens - in fact, it's probably a good quiet way of showing the "respect" one side has for the other.

 

In lower-level bridge, a lot these kinds of things Just Get Worked Out, except that they don't - it's done with "I could call the TD on this, but I won't" or "So, what *were* you thinking about there?" or the like - or, better yet, there's a grumble like that at the table, and a reporting of it to the TD after a round or so ("so, what do you expect me to do?" "Nothing, just reporting it" - implied: "these guys need a Good Talking To, and I'm telling you to do it"*); and at that point, calling the TD and doing it one of the many right ways is much better (in * case, if a Good Talking To is needed, in the TD's estimation, then it will happen, for instance).

[awm]

Watching on vugraph, it certainly appeared that Fred went into quite a huddle at trick one on this hand. It wasn't the usual 10-15 seconds or whatever that's routine at trick one.

[gnasher]

Even as far as the legal aspect, I think it would be quite reasonable to determine that either/both of his instant play from dummy and his comment to Fred means a pause by Fred doesn't transmit UI. (Not in the sense that I think his comment is an attempt to waive his rights, but that it would be hard to transmit UI from taking time after declarer invited you to do just that.)

Yes, as long as Fred always (or usually) pauses when invited to do so by declarer.

[jdonn]

Even as far as the legal aspect, I think it would be quite reasonable to determine that either/both of his instant play from dummy and his comment to Fred means a pause by Fred doesn't transmit UI. (Not in the sense that I think his comment is an attempt to waive his rights, but that it would be hard to transmit UI from taking time after declarer invited you to do just that.)

Yes, as long as Fred always (or usually) pauses when invited to do so by declarer.

How would anyone know what he does in that unusual situation? I couldn't tell you how that comment changes the regular behavior of a single bridge player on earth, myself included.

[barmar]

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

 

Its not in the laws.

Sure it is. L73 refers to "undue hesitation". Since bridge players are generally taught to take time after dummy comes down to plan their play or defense, some extra time to think at this time is not generally considered "undue". There's a different standard for tempo at trick 1 than later in the hand.

 

The Laws don't say explicitly that the hesitation is expected, although it certainly acknowledges it when it authorizes RAs to make the pause mandatory. But without the mandate, it leaves interpretation of "undue" to other parties.

[Cascade]

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

 

Its not in the laws.

Sure it is. L73 refers to "undue hesitation". Since bridge players are generally taught to take time after dummy comes down to plan their play or defense, some extra time to think at this time is not generally considered "undue". There's a different standard for tempo at trick 1 than later in the hand.

 

The Laws don't say explicitly that the hesitation is expected, although it certainly acknowledges it when it authorizes RAs to make the pause mandatory. But without the mandate, it leaves interpretation of "undue" to other parties.

I draw the opposite conclusion from the authorization for RAs to mandate a trick one pause. When it is not mandated the RAs are sending a message that such a pause is not obligatory.

 

Further when it is not mandated one pauses at one's own risk. The standard from Law 73 in the absence of a mandate is 'steady tempo and unvarying manner' and departures from that are cautioned to be particularly careful when variations could work to the benefit of their side. Thinking at trick one IMO is such a situation as in some situations you may mislead the opponent that you had a trick one problem when you had a whole hand problem.

 

The trick one pause is a cultural thing that I believe would be best made explicit if it was the intention of the lawmakers or RAs that a trick one pause was required.

[bucky]

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

This will be the layout to cash CA (and give partner ruff) IF north didn't have CJ. With CAJ there is no reason to play CA, not to mention it is pretty unlikely for partner to hold 6241 and only bid 3S.

[cherdanno]

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

This will be the layout to cash CA (and give partner ruff) IF north didn't have CJ. With CAJ there is no reason to play CA, not to mention it is pretty unlikely for partner to hold 6241 and only bid 3S.

Declarer can pitch two clubs and ruff one. But of course I agree Fred would be unlikely to bid 3S with 6241 ;)

[barmar]

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

 

Its not in the laws.

Sure it is. L73 refers to "undue hesitation". Since bridge players are generally taught to take time after dummy comes down to plan their play or defense, some extra time to think at this time is not generally considered "undue". There's a different standard for tempo at trick 1 than later in the hand.

 

The Laws don't say explicitly that the hesitation is expected, although it certainly acknowledges it when it authorizes RAs to make the pause mandatory. But without the mandate, it leaves interpretation of "undue" to other parties.

I draw the opposite conclusion from the authorization for RAs to mandate a trick one pause. When it is not mandated the RAs are sending a message that such a pause is not obligatory.

 

Further when it is not mandated one pauses at one's own risk. The standard from Law 73 in the absence of a mandate is 'steady tempo and unvarying manner' and departures from that are cautioned to be particularly careful when variations could work to the benefit of their side. Thinking at trick one IMO is such a situation as in some situations you may mislead the opponent that you had a trick one problem when you had a whole hand problem.

 

The trick one pause is a cultural thing that I believe would be best made explicit if it was the intention of the lawmakers or RAs that a trick one pause was required.

"Steady tempo" should be interpreted in context. You should try to have a consistent trick 1 tempo and a consistent middle-of-hand tempo, but it's totally unrealistic to expect players to maintain the same tempo at trick 1 as other tricks. And both opponents and partner should understand that there's always more to think about at trick 1, so they shouldn't be misled.

 

Even if you take longer than usual to follow to trick 1, why should it be interpreted as a problem with that trick rather than the entire hand being more complicated?

[bucky]

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

This will be the layout to cash CA (and give partner ruff) IF north didn't have CJ. With CAJ there is no reason to play CA, not to mention it is pretty unlikely for partner to hold 6241 and only bid 3S.

Declarer can pitch two clubs and ruff one. But of course I agree Fred would be unlikely to bid 3S with 6241 :P

After declarer pitches two clubs on diamonds, he still has 3 clubs (KQx) left. He has 1435 shape in your example hand. Where does the ruff come from?