Rodwell Quote

[gordontd]

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

Perhaps, but I brought it up because it seems to me that the reason why Wayne is bothered by the thought of his opponents playing fast is because he doesn't think he has the means to keep the play to tempo.

[AlexJonson]

Perhaps, but I brought it up because it seems to me that the reason why Wayne is bothered by the thought of his opponents playing fast is because he doesn't think he has the means to keep the play to tempo.

 

Either defender or both can control tempo at their turn to play.

 

I would personally never leave my card face up over after the end of the trick, unless to ask to see the cards played. But it seems clear, if only for the reasons Aguahombre gives, that it would be more trouble than it's worth to make it illegal.

[pran]

Either defender or both can control tempo at their turn to play.

 

I would personally never leave my card face up over after the end of the trick, unless to ask to see the cards played. But it seems clear, if only for the reasons Aguahombre gives, that it would be more trouble than it's worth to make it illegal.

Players are not expected to have "photographic memory".

Any player has an obvious right to maintain his played card face up during a reasonable time for the purpose of digesting the information he can (legally) have from seeing the cards actually played.

 

(Maintaining a played card face up for the (sole) purpose of disconcerning an opponent or to send a coded message to his partner is of course illegal.)

[barmar]

I think this is taking things too far. The logic that says Rodwell is wrong would also imply that "ducking smoothly" is unethical.

 

He's not trying to mislead the opponents by playing quickly, just putting pressure on them.

[mjj29]

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

If I need to think, but not about the play to the current trick, then the laws don't permit me to think before playing to this trick (particularly if I have, say, a singleton) and if I turn my card I'll then have the same problem at the next trick, so I play, but leave my card face up until I've finished my thinking. If I want to think before tempo-sensitive positions I can't think of a better time to do it...

[pran]

I think this is taking things too far. The logic that says Rodwell is wrong would also imply that "ducking smoothly" is unethical.

 

He's not trying to mislead the opponents by playing quickly, just putting pressure on them.

And opponents are in their full right to resist such pressure by adjusting their speed for their own comfort so long as they do not unjustified delay the game.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

If opponents have mentioned this several times, then it is likely that you do have a problem.

 

Naturally you need to think sometime, but just before you are going to make a discard with a significant meaning is the wrong time.

[mjj29]

If opponents have mentioned this several times, then it is likely that you do have a problem.

 

Naturally you need to think sometime, but just before you are going to make a discard with a significant meaning is the wrong time.

OTOH, players online are all completely intolerant of taking any time to think. I'm almost always the first table to finish a round at IRL clubs, but still get complaints of slow play online if I want to put any thought at all into my plays. Even when I'm declaring a tricky hand where I need to thenk.

[barmar]

Online players do lots of things they would never do f2f, you can't use them as a standard. In the case of thinking, f2f players can see your demeanor, and can tell that you're thinking about something, not clicking in some other window when you're supposed to be playing. There are also different social pressures.

[Phil]

If opponents have mentioned this several times, then it is likely that you do have a problem.

 

Or the opponents do.

 

If my partner served the table, or I did, and an opponent types the standard 'faster pls', I will respond with, "sorry I need to think about this". If they persist, then its "don't let the door hit you on the a$$".

 

If an opponent served, I'll politely say that I prefer a game where we think about the hand, instead of pushing cards. This doesn't happen often generally.

[barmar]

Or the opponents do.

 

If my partner served the table, or I did, and an opponent types the standard 'faster pls', I will respond with, "sorry I need to think about this". If they persist, then its "don't let the door hit you on the a$$".

 

If an opponent served, I'll politely say that I prefer a game where we think about the hand, instead of pushing cards. This doesn't happen often generally.

And when you're playing in a tourney?

 

Some players think that being in a speedball tourney means you can't take more than 5 seconds to think about anything, they immediately pipe up with "faster, this is speedball".

[Phil]

Some players think that being in a speedball tourney means you can't take more than 5 seconds to think about anything, they immediately pipe up with "faster, this is speedball".

 

Or they just call the director, which is annoying and wastes even more time.

[AlexJonson]

Players are not expected to have "photographic memory".

Any player has an obvious right to maintain his played card face up during a reasonable time for the purpose of digesting the information he can (legally) have from seeing the cards actually played.

 

(Maintaining a played card face up for the (sole) purpose of disconcerning an opponenttrick,or to send a coded message to his partner is of course illegal.)

 

Let's ignore your final point Pran, I'm not a Secretary Bird.

 

Imagine you used to play the game with a pack of cards and no boards to put them in. When everyone plays to a trick, declarer/defender takes them in and plays to the next trick at his pace.

 

I choose to play the game in the same way now - and of course you can legally play differently.

[pran]

Let's ignore your final point Pran, I'm not a Secretary Bird.

 

Imagine you used to play the game with a pack of cards and no boards to put them in. When everyone plays to a trick, declarer/defender takes them in and plays to the next trick at his pace.

 

I choose to play the game in the same way now - and of course you can legally play differently.

In that case I believe the applicable laws are those for Contract Bridge where we find:

 

Law 66 – Inspection of Tricks

Declarer or either defender may, until a member of his side has led or played to the following trick, inspect a trick and inquire what card each player has played to it. [...] (my enhancement)

 

Which gives even more latitude to a player who feels pressure from an opponent.

[bluejak]

If I need to think, but not about the play to the current trick, then the laws don't permit me to think before playing to this trick (particularly if I have, say, a singleton) and ...

Much as I hate to open a can of worms - I just know the next two posts :( - the Laws do not say any such thing. They say you may not mislead. I say "I am not thinking about this trick" and now I am not misleading so the Law does not say I cannot think.

[mjj29]

Much as I hate to open a can of worms - I just know the next two posts :( - the Laws do not say any such thing. They say you may not mislead. I say "I am not thinking about this trick" and now I am not misleading so the Law does not say I cannot think.

OK, sure, but just thinking before turning your card is an even easier way to communicate this, and I've never been sure of how well such comments work at avoiding charges of thinking in tempo-sensitive positions when it wasn't neccessary.

[aguahombre]

In that case I believe the applicable laws are those for Contract Bridge where we find:

 

Law 66 – Inspection of Tricks

Declarer or either defender may, until a member of his side has led or played to the following trick, inspect a trick and inquire what card each player has played to it. [...] (my enhancement)

 

Which gives even more latitude to a player who feels pressure from an opponent.

Strangely, you omitted "until he has turned his own card face down on the table", which is written in my copy of 66A which you quoted.

[mrdct]

In that case I believe the applicable laws are those for Contract Bridge where we find:

 

Law 66 – Inspection of Tricks

Declarer or either defender may, until a member of his side has led or played to the following trick, inspect a trick and inquire what card each player has played to it. [...] (my enhancement)

That isn't an "enhancement", it's a material rewording conveying an entirely different meaning to that set out in the Laws.

 

Law 66A states, "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." My emphasis added but no "enhancements".

 

Once you have turned your card over you no longer have a right to inspect a quitted trick, irrespective of whether or not your side has played to the next trick. Pursuant to Law 66B you can look at your own card from the previous trick (before your side has played to the next trick) but you can't expose it.

[blackshoe]

Law 66 (Rubber Bridge): Declarer or either defender may, until a member of his side has led or played to the following trick, inspect a trick and inquire what card each player has played to it.

 

Law 66A (Duplicate Bridge): So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.

 

Sven is talking apples, mrdct is talking oranges. :D

[pran]

Sven is talking apples, mrdct is talking oranges. :D

In Duplicate each player turns his own played card down.

In Contract all four cards constituting one trick is collected by a player on the side winning the trick.

As Blackshoe writes I was referring to the laws on contract bridge which then seemed to be the applicable law here.

 

My reference is: http://web2.acbl.org/laws/rlaws/lawofcontractbridgecombined_2004.pdf

in which Law 66A says nothing like "until he has turned his own card face down on the table"

[gnasher]

Much as I hate to open a can of worms - I just know the next two posts :( - the Laws do not say any such thing. They say you may not mislead. I say "I am not thinking about this trick" and now I am not misleading so the Law does not say I cannot think.

 

They also say that you should not make gratuitous comments, or communicate with partner by making extraneous remarks.

 

If you say "I am not thinking about this trick", you tell partner something about what you are thinking about. If you merely cause play to be suspended in a situation where it's unclear whether you are thinking about the just-quitted trick, the next trick, or the entire hand, you communicate less information.

 

Obviously, if you find yourself thinking in a situation where it might mislead an opponent, you should say something to prevent his being misled. However, if you have a choice, it's plainly better to follow Mjj23's approach.

[bluejak]

You are communicating with opponents to avoid misleading them. The fact that it tells partner something is tough, that's UI. Since the purpose is to avoid misleading it is not gratuitous.

 

Compare when opponents ask you a question about your methods. You do not say you should not answer because it communicates with partner, do you? But your answer tells partner something.

 

When you need to avoid misleading opponents you should do so and let partner worry about any UI problems that follow.

[gnasher]

You are communicating with opponents to avoid misleading them. The fact that it tells partner something is tough, that's UI. Since the purpose is to avoid misleading it is not gratuitous.

 

Compare when opponents ask you a question about your methods. You do not say you should not answer because it communicates with partner, do you? But your answer tells partner something.

 

When you need to avoid misleading opponents you should do so and let partner worry about any UI problems that follow.

 

Yes, that's what I said in my final paragraph.

 

My point was that when you have a choice between

- Keeping your played card face up whilst you think about whatever you want to think about, and

- Thinking at your turn to play and saying "I'm not thinking about this trick"

you should do the former, both because it avoids transmitting UI and because (arguably at least) the Laws require it.

[bluejak]

No, I do not believe you should, nor that the Laws require it. If thinking does not mislead you have a perfect right to think when you want.

[mjj29]

No, I do not believe you should, nor that the Laws require it. If thinking does not mislead you have a perfect right to think when you want.

But if you're not thinking about this trick, then it may mislead and you don't have a demonstratable bridge reason for thinking then. If you play and then think, while preventing people from playing to the next trick you are much less likely to mislead (you can't be thinking about play to the current trick) and you have a demonstratable bridge reason for thinking - vis to avoid misleading by thinking at your turn to play to a trick.