Rodwell Quote

[Cascade]

After reading of the availability of this book on these forums I purchased an electronic copy which I have been reading and thoroughly enjoying.

 

However I came across some advice that troubles me from a bridge law perspective:

 

If you can see all this quickly, it pays to play fast as the defenders might give away the position of the high cards by their tempo.

 

Is anyone else troubled by this practice of varying one's tempo in order to gain an advantage?

[nigel_k]

I think this sort of thing is perfectly ok.

 

As a fast player, I'm fully aware of the ways I can benefit from this and don't feel a bit guilty about accepting those advantages. Sometimes the opponents try to match my tempo and make mistakes. Sometimes they get caught thinking in situations where they needed to act smoothly. Sometimes I save time that is needed later when I have an actual problem.

 

I do take time to think when I need to, but when I don't have a problem I make my bid or play immediately. Obviously my tempo is therefore uneven but I don't see how this can be avoided. If I sometimes take 60 seconds to play a card, obviously I can't take that much time over every card in order to preserve an even tempo. Nor does it improve matters to deliberately always take a minimum of three seconds, for example, because that isn't enough time when you have a real problem but to take longer over every card would delay the game too much.

 

My understanding is that it's wrong to think deliberately when you don't have a problem but opponents could be misled into thinking you do have one. It's also wrong to switch between slow and fast with the goal of disconcerting the opponents. But if you have a legitimate choice about when to think, you can exercise that choice in any way that appears beneficial. So if you know you will have a problem at trick three, you may take some time to think about this problem at trick one or you may choose to play the first two tricks quickly because there is a possible gain from putting opponents on the spot and you can do your thinking later.

[the hog]

After reading of the availability of this book on these forums I purchased an electronic copy which I have been reading and thoroughly enjoying.

 

However I came across some advice that troubles me from a bridge law perspective:

 

 

 

Is anyone else troubled by this practice of varying one's tempo in order to gain an advantage?

 

Absolutely not. I think this is perfectly reasonable.

[aguahombre]

The reverse: playing slower than you need to, for the benefit of the opponents doesn't seem right. And I don't think he was referring to lightning speed and cajolling when he wrote that.

[mtvesuvius]

This seems to be similar to a "Tempo discovery play"... For example, say you are declaring 4♥:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqthat98d654c643&n=skj7hkj76da32cak2]133|200[/hv]

 

Suppose LHO leads the ♣Q. You win the king in dummy, and need to decide how to guess the trump suit. By playing the ♠J in tempo off dummy and observing RHO's tendency to hitch or fumble, you can then return to dummy and lead the ♥J off and will be better informed to make a good trump guess.

[blackshoe]

Law 73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk.

 

The emphases are mine. IMO, the second sentence, and the word "unintentional" in the third sentence, make it clear that it is unethical to vary tempo intentionally when such variation may benefit one's own side. I also think that "such variations" in the last sentence refers to the unintentional variations in the third sentence, and not to intentional variations.

[mrdct]

After reading of the availability of this book on these forums I purchased an electronic copy which I have been reading and thoroughly enjoying.

 

However I came across some advice that troubles me from a bridge law perspective:

 

If you can see all this quickly, it pays to play fast as the defenders might give away the position of the high cards by their tempo.

 

Is anyone else troubled by this practice of varying one's tempo in order to gain an advantage?

Law 73D1 states, "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk." My emphasis added.

 

Being careful about tempos which could work to your side's advantage is a "should" requirement, so a breach is an infraction but not often penalised, however read on to Law 73D2 which states, "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. " My emphasis added.

 

In the Laws, "may not" conveys the second strongest form of prohibition (ahead of "shall not" but behind "must not") so a breach of Law 73D2 is something that would routinely be penalised and if done persistently with intent to gain an advantage illegally would be (imho) classed as cheating. The question is whether or not speeding up so you can read your opponent's tempo better is an "attempt to mislead"? The Oxford defines "mislead" as cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression. It is probably a stretch to describe this sort of action as an attempt to mislead, but I think it is certainly a breach of correct procedure and should be discouraged. If it is a repeated behaviour one could look at penalising the perpetrator.

 

What Rodwell seems to be suggesting (although I stress that I've not seen the full context from which the quote was taken) is to intentionally vary one's tempo for the purpose of inducing one's opponents to give-up important information about their hands through their response to the variation in tempo. I think it's fair to describe it as borderline unethical, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it cheating. It is a little bit like an insta-play from dummy the second it comes down when you have a suit combination in the suit lead which will potentially put RHO under pressure to find a good falsecard, the right intermediate card or the right signal. As most people would know, insta-plays from dummy are seriously frowned-upon in expert circles.

 

Perhaps what Rodwell meant to say was, "it pays to play fast in normal tempo as the defenders might give away the position of the high cards by their tempo".

[AlexJonson]

I doubt any poster would call the TD to complain that their opponent thinks quickly and forces them to think on their own time.

 

If variation in tempo is not about, for example, hesitating with singletons, or hesitating without an honour card while playing quickly with an honour card and other such attempts to mislead, I am not sure how it could be construed as misleading or illegal.

 

While it is discourteous, disconcerting and illegal to (for example) turn your cards before the last opponent has played, there can be nothing wrong with smoothly playing to several tricks to exploit your own success in analysing the hand.

 

I'm pretty sure that I have seen some of our eminent TDs support the idea of planning your discards when you know you may have several to make, so that you can then play smoothly: this is certainly variation of tempo that you know might lead to your advantage: that is not the same thing as misleading or disconcerting an opponent.

[campboy]

Like other posters, I don't think Rodwell is talking about breaking tempo here. He is talking about playing in tempo even when he has something to think about which would force most players to break tempo by taking more time. This is not just permitted, it's "desirable".

[mrdct]

... there can be nothing wrong with smoothly playing to several tricks to exploit your own success in analysing the hand.

I fully agree with that, but the quote talked about playing "fast" which to my mind implies playing out of tempo which, if done intentionally in circumstances where it could work to your advantage, is an infraction.

[Cascade]

I fully agree with that, but the quote talked about playing "fast" which to my mind implies playing out of tempo which, if done intentionally in circumstances where it could work to your advantage, is an infraction.

 

Indeed ...

 

If you can see all this quickly, it pays to play in normal tempo as the defenders might give away the position of the high cards by their tempo.

 

... doesn't seem to have the same meaning as what Eric Rodwell wrote.

[campboy]

Well, it depends. Would he normally play "fast" at this point in the hand if he didn't have a problem? He shouldn't play any faster than that, I agree.

[mjj29]

Perhaps what Rodwell meant to say was, "it pays to play fast in normal tempo as the defenders might give away the position of the high cards by their tempo".

I read it as "it pays for your normal tempo to be fast as the defenders might give away the position of the high cards by their tempo".

[helene_t]

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

I always thought that this was about misleading opps or giving UI to p. But if the meaning was that narrow, I think the law should have stated that explicitly. So it can be interpreted as applying to Rodwell's tactic also. Interesting.

[gwnn]

I think if you always play fast in certain situations, that will be by definition your tempo in those cases, so you are not varying your tempo. Fast just means that you're faster than a random player.

[Cascade]

I think if you always play fast in certain situations, that will be by definition your tempo in those cases, so you are not varying your tempo. Fast just means that you're faster than a random player.

 

If 'certain situations' is situations in which the opponents may give additional clues by their tempo then I think there is a problem with this strategy.

 

Playing 'fast' in those situations means that you are playing slower in other situations therefore you are deliberately varying your tempo and using it to your advantage.

 

This is not the way that I believe the laws require us to play.

[semeai]

This is all taking it a bit too far I think. One could similarly try to use 73D1 to argue that varying your tempo by deliberately playing more slowly when you need time to think [in situations where UI is not an issue] is something you should not do: it is not playing in a steady manner, and it could benefit your side.

[gwnn]

I think it is silly to say that a constant tempo is 1 second/trick, regardless of contract and the cards that I hold.

 

If it is a 3NT with an obvious source of tricks and an obvious way of playing the suit combination, I will take about 1 second/trick.

 

If it is a 7NT with several squeeze possibilities and several reasonable ways of playing any of the suits, I will take about 45 seconds/trick.

 

I guess this means that I am varying my tempo, and indeed it is to my advantage, if I did it the other way around (or took 23 seconds/trick) I wouldn't make the 3NT more often but would make 7NT much less often than the thoughtful play.

 

edit: curses! semeai was faster!

[Scoti]

This matter of tempo is something that worries me. I have played friendly bridge and online bridge only, so it is a bit intimidating to think that my every card might be timed in a live tournament. Several times online players have remarked that they thought I had used tempo to signal my P. But that was not the case. Rather that I simply think about a lot of varied considerations, as well as keep 4 suit count, and try to paint a distribution picture. And if my own opponents are playing quickly then much of it will be done at times it is my play. So I may have what others could see as an unjustified delay, when I'm actually not even be thinking about the next card I lay. Its got to be done sometime. And surely every player has a right to think about everything they believe they need to in order to produce the most correct play. If it were to become a problem, I would just have to do as one player mentioned and take my full 60 seconds on Every play. But then of course, Everyone gets penalized for slow play if the event gets ahead of them, even the ops, who may be playing quite crisply. So I really don't know what to think of this. I would like to suggest it is overemphasized and ridiculous; but I cannot do that. Because at the same time, I know I could be quite capable of working out a Timed Sytem with a P, that says, "10 seconds means lead back the next lower suit, but 20 seconds go Up a suit" etc. ...as a simple example. But really it could become quite complex with meanings for 5 seconds after a Jack meaning different than 5 after a King, etc etc. OR BIDDING especially! But I just like to play fair. Yet can see where it could be a problem with some players. And maybe that is the answer. Surely players that do it chronically, or display some method/system to it, become apparent, and individual consideration by Directors may be needed.

 

So I suppose my thought on it would be to do what you need to do for time use. And not to worry it unless you are getting complaints. I'm sure there are plenty of players who will let you know if they think you transmit via time use, or the angle of your crooked necktie !?

[paulg]

It should remembered that Rodwell's pace of play is funereal and his 'fast' play is just very slow.

[Mbodell]

Also, when I am defending if I'm playing someone who plays faster than I'd like I make extra sure to leave the first trick out longer and ask people to let me consider the hand at the first trick.

 

This can sometimes give things away a little if the key decision is T1, but more often this lets me catch my breath and consider the whole hand, what is partner's shape, what is declarer's shape, where are the high cards likely to be, and how many winners/losers do we have and do they have. I should do this all the time (and do the thinking most of the time), but if I'm playing someone I know is a fast/turbo player, I intentionally think even longer at this first trick (and likely play better as a result).

[Cascade]

It should remembered that Rodwell's pace of play is funereal and his 'fast' play is just very slow.

 

If this is true then it would seem that Eric Rodwell intended 'fast' to mean 'faster than normal'.

[gordontd]

Also, when I am defending if I'm playing someone who plays faster than I'd like I make extra sure to leave the first trick out longer and ask people to let me consider the hand at the first trick.

Maybe this is part of Wayne's issue - I seem to remember him arguing in another forum some years ago that players don't have the right to slow down play by not quitting a trick.

[Cascade]

Maybe this is part of Wayne's issue - I seem to remember him arguing in another forum some years ago that players don't have the right to slow down play by not quitting a trick.

 

Indeed I am not convinced that tactic is legal.

 

1. There is nothing in the laws that say I cannot lead to the next trick until after you have quitted your trick

 

2. There is an instruction saying that the trick is to be quitted "when" all four players have played to the current trick

[aguahombre]

Indeed I am not convinced that tactic is legal.

 

1. There is nothing in the laws that say I cannot lead to the next trick until after you have quitted your trick

 

2. There is an instruction saying that the trick is to be quitted "when" all four players have played to the current trick

The reference seems to start with 65A, which impies a trick is "completed" when all four players have played, and the players are to then turn their played cards face-down.

 

However, this does not seem to require immediacy. 66A allows a player who has not turned his own card to inspect the cards played to that trick by others. Maybe there is nothing requiring you to wait until all cards are "quitted" (turned) from the previous trick, but it seems the person with a faced card (whether next to play or not) must be able to halt proceedings before his side has played to the next trick, for inspection of that previous trick. Otherwise such player would not be able to excercise his inspection rights under 66A.

 

This track, is moving away from the original issue, however; and into ways of countering rapid play.