Rodwell Quote

[bluejak]

So you are saying I am unethical if I think when I want, saying that I am not thinking about this trick? I find that upsetting, to say the least. I have no intention whatever of upsetting other people by holding a trick up unnecessarily so I can think at a time I do not want to, especially as I have never had an upset opponent when I have made such a disclaimer when thinking when I want: such people seem to be only on forums.

[gnasher]

So you are saying I am unethical if I think when I want, saying that I am not thinking about this trick? I find that upsetting, to say the least. I have no intention whatever of upsetting other people by holding a trick up unnecessarily so I can think at a time I do not want to, especially as I have never had an upset opponent when I have made such a disclaimer when thinking when I want: such people seem to be only on forums.

 

It's your partner who you might be upsetting, because you're giving him UI unnecessarily. An opponent is unlikely to complain unless your partner breaks the laws relating to that UI.

 

Of the three approaches:

(1) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying nothing

(2) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying "I'm not thinking about this trick"

(3) Refusing to quit trick 3 until you have finished thinking

 

2 is obviously better than 1, because it avoids MI. However, it does convey UI.

3 is obviously better than 2, because it avoids MI and conveys less UI.

[aguahombre]

What I really like about Andy's presentation (above) is that it does not even slightly hint at the "ethics" of the options available to the one who is thinking; rather the affect they might have on partner.

 

That is a distinction with a difference.

[bluejak]

It's your partner who you might be upsetting, because you're giving him UI unnecessarily. An opponent is unlikely to complain unless your partner breaks the laws relating to that UI.

 

Of the three approaches:

(1) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying nothing

(2) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying "I'm not thinking about this trick"

(3) Refusing to quit trick 3 until you have finished thinking

 

2 is obviously better than 1, because it avoids MI. However, it does convey UI.

3 is obviously better than 2, because it avoids MI and conveys less UI.

Of course 2 is "obviously" better than 3 because I have every right to think when I want, and refusing to quit trick 3 to think at a time when I do not want is unnecessary and silly.

 

My partner's ethics are fine, thank-you, and she is not upset that I am ethical.

[campboy]

Honestly I don't see a difference between (2) and (3), at least in terms of information given. Both make it clear that you were thinking, but not about the current trick.

[gnasher]

Honestly I don't see a difference between (2) and (3), at least in terms of information given. Both make it clear that you were thinking, but not about the current trick.

 

With (3) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3, what to play to trick 4, or the whole hand.

 

With (2) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3 but you probably aren't. You definitely aren't thinking about trick 4.

[gnasher]

My partner's ethics are fine, thank-you, and she is not upset that I am ethical.

This sort of conversation tends to go more smoothly if people actually read what was written. I haven't suggested that either you or your partner behaves unethically.

[campboy]

With (3) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3, what to play to trick 4, or the whole hand.

 

With (2) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3 but you probably aren't. You definitely aren't thinking about trick 4.

Ah, ok, I'd misunderstood. I thought (2) was thinking during trick *3*. I agree that if you know at the end of trick 3 that you need to think, you are better off doing so immediately (after all, how do you know you won't have to think about trick 4?).

[bluejak]

If I decide I need to think at the end of trick 3, I think at the end of trick 3.

 

If I decide I need to think during trick 4, I think during trick 4.

 

Strange, huh?

[semeai]

If I decide I need to think at the end of trick 3, I think at the end of trick 3.

 

If I decide I need to think during trick 4, I think during trick 4.

 

Strange, huh?

 

As implied in gnasher's post and more explicit in aguahombre's, this appears not to be a matter of ethics but of technique. By gnasher's reasoning, not doing your thinking early here is simply akin to missing a safety play: sometimes the extra UI you transmit will lead to a worse result for your side.

[bluejak]

I assume posts are on-topic, and when I posted originally it was criticised. This is not a suitable forum for people to criticise my technique, and I would strongly prefer they did not otherwise I feel forced to reply suitably.

 

So long as people accept it is legal, that is an end of the matter in my view.

[gombo121]

May I respectfully suggest that current approach to the problem of the information that arises from hesitations of opposing side during the play is completely misguided?

 

First, it is completely unreasonable to expect completely uniform tempo of play from anybody in any circumstances. It just would not happen - ever - provided we do not employ technical means to enforce it, which I think is unlikely.

 

Second (the Law) allow a player to draw conclusions from opponents' hesitations (though it is clearly extraneous information), but prohibit them to vary tempo in order to confuse the player. That puts opponents in a vulnerable position in many cases, where it is known that it is really necessary to play "smoothly" (meaning really fast) or you are done. (The best known such position is, of course, two-way finesse - if you hesitate, you'll be finessed and if it fails you are liable for prosecution for trying to mislead declarer, since you have "no bridge reasons" to think/hesitate. In fact, in the same book Rodwell describes "the speed of lightning" play, which is based exactly on the fact that there are positions, where defender are compelled to play low fast -"at the speed of lightning" - because any pause is a dead giveaway.) Moreover, this provisions of the Law create perverse incencentive for the player to watch for hesitations or other tells from opponents (though it is prohibited under the Law), because he can rely on them being unfeigned.

 

I strongly believe that we would be much better if we allow players to use variations of tempo in order to confuse opponent (not to convey infomation to partner, of course!) - that means pausing for thought at any moment, including before playing a singleton. This approach would drasticly reduce ability of declarer to rely on extraneous information, beside bids and plays, just because it suddenly become much less reliable. And this is a good thing, because making decisions based only on bids and plays is the ideal promoted by the Law, isn't it?

At the very least, we should stress the "at his own risk" clause of the Law 84D1 and firmly deny players any redress in any cases of erroneus conclusions made from deliberate mannerisms of opponents while preserving penalties (PP or possible adjusted score) for offending side. This would strongly reduce incentives to follow clues from such mannerisms and it is completely within current law (though contrary to prevailing practice).

 

Answering to original post: it seems that varying tempo to own advantage is frowned upon in current trend, but, really, it should not be.

[axman]

May I respectfully suggest that current approach to the problem of the information that arises from hesitations of opposing side during the play is completely misguided?

 

First, it is completely unreasonable to expect completely uniform tempo of play from anybody in any circumstances. It just would not happen - ever - provided we do not employ technical means to enforce it, which I think is unlikely.

 

Second (the Law) allow a player to draw conclusions from opponents' hesitations (though it is clearly extraneous information), but prohibit them to vary tempo in order to confuse the player. That puts opponents in a vulnerable position in many cases, where it is known that it is really necessary to play "smoothly" (meaning really fast) or you are done. (The best known such position is, of course, two-way finesse - if you hesitate, you'll be finessed and if it fails you are liable for prosecution for trying to mislead declarer, since you have "no bridge reasons" to think/hesitate. In fact, in the same book Rodwell describes "the speed of lightning" play, which is based exactly on the fact that there are positions, where defender are compelled to play low fast -"at the speed of lightning" - because any pause is a dead giveaway.) Moreover, this provisions of the Law create perverse incencentive for the player to watch for hesitations or other tells from opponents (though it is prohibited under the Law), because he can rely on them being unfeigned.

 

I strongly believe that we would be much better if we allow players to use variations of tempo in order to confuse opponent (not to convey infomation to partner, of course!) - that means pausing for thought at any moment, including before playing a singleton. This approach would drasticly reduce ability of declarer to rely on extraneous information, beside bids and plays, just because it suddenly become much less reliable. And this is a good thing, because making decisions based only on bids and plays is the ideal promoted by the Law, isn't it?

At the very least, we should stress the "at his own risk" clause of the Law 84D1 and firmly deny players any redress in any cases of erroneus conclusions made from deliberate mannerisms of opponents while preserving penalties (PP or possible adjusted score) for offending side. This would strongly reduce incentives to follow clues from such mannerisms and it is completely within current law (though contrary to prevailing practice).

 

Answering to original post: it seems that varying tempo to own advantage is frowned upon in current trend, but, really, it should not be.

 

 

A player that tries to maintain a consistent tempo will not go about consciously varying it so as to get a reaction from an opponent. If such a player does vary his manner and does get a reaction from his opponent, and if he should draw inference he does so at his own peril that he misunderstands the source of the reaction [eg the distinction between being startled and between contemplation]. Such a player- whether fair minded or Rodwell should realize that any mistake came from himself and it would be a grave breach of propriety to accuse the opponent of improper deception or even broach or contemplate the matter. Unintentional or not, his hands aren’t clean and it is wrongheaded to believe ill of such an opponent.

 

In the poker world, what Rodwell contemplates is called shooting an angle. To an observer, he can’t tell what shooter’s motivation is [can’t discern a breach of propriety] so the shooter [a] wins/breaks even if he gets the tell right and he wins when he gets a tell but gets his play wrong- because in that instance he has a case for improper deception which will unsettle and distract, perhaps break his opponent’s will to win- even when the shooter loses his L73 ‘accusation’. The angle is that the shooter’s mannerism changeup gets lost in the confusion and never is brought up as a bridge reason for the tell, let alone as a basis for a proprieties case against the shooter.

 

As fascinating as embracing coffee housing may be, I for one am unable to visualize a set of rules for bridge that encompass it. Nor can I visualize such a game being popular amongst more than meager numbers. Such a game would be focused upon who can be the rudest and roughest character. I should think that to hold one’s interest significant stakes need to be involved- there in fact being such a game known as poker.

[gnasher]

I assume posts are on-topic, and when I posted originally it was criticised. This is not a suitable forum for people to criticise my technique, and I would strongly prefer they did not otherwise I feel forced to reply suitably.

 

So long as people accept it is legal, that is an end of the matter in my view.

 

I don't know which people you're referring to, but I certainly haven't accepted that it's legal. I just don't have anything to add to my earlier comments on the legality.

[bluejak]

I did not say everyone was merely criticising my technique, but some are, and your posts come pretty close. Telling me I should do something because it is better is criticising my technique.

 

You have some muddled thinking, of course: you admit that you should make a disclaimer if you get into a position where you would break the Law otherwise by misleading opponents. But your deductions from it just don't follow: it is not logical that therefore you are required to avoid thinking at times when you want to, and it is impolite to suggest it is better to do so.

 

If the Laws require something, they tend to say so: the Laws do not require you to think at certain times and not others, unless you mislead opponents, so if you do not mislead opponents you can think when you like.

[gnasher]

I did not say everyone was merely criticising my technique, but some are, and your posts come pretty close. Telling me I should do something because it is better is criticising my technique.

Don't be absurd. I'm not making a personal attack on you, your ethics, your partner's ethics, your technique, or your great-grandmother's politics. My views about the legality and good sense of what you suggest apply to everyone, not just to you.

 

We started with the abstract question of what any player should do. You chose to personalise it by using your own behaviour as an example of what you believe to be acceptable. I continued to use your example to illustrate my point. It is utterly unreasonable for you to object to this.

 

You have some muddled thinking, of course: you admit that you should make a disclaimer if you get into a position where you would break the Law otherwise by misleading opponents. But your deductions from it just don't follow: it is not logical that therefore you are required to avoid thinking at times when you want to

Perhaps you would regard my thoughts as less muddled if you took the trouble to read them properly. I didn't say that you are "required to avoid thinking at times when you want to", I said that if you have a chioice between thinking at a time that obliges you to make a disclaimer and thinking at a time that doesn't, arguably you are obliged to choose the latter. I gave reasons for this which you haven't, so far as I can see, addressed.

 

If the Laws require something, they tend to say so

I would reply to that by giving examples of where the Laws don't come close to saying what it's generally accepted that they require. However, if I do you'll just tell me that this forum isn't for discussing the shortcomings of the Laws, so I won't bother.

[blackshoe]

The interesting thing to me, which no one has yet mentioned, is that Rodwell is on the ACBLLC. Given that position, one would think he would know better than to suggest coffeehousing is legal. <_<

[gombo121]

As fascinating as embracing coffee housing may be, I for one am unable to visualize a set of rules for bridge that encompass it. Nor can I visualize such a game being popular amongst more than meager numbers. Such a game would be focused upon who can be the rudest and roughest character. I should think that to hold one’s interest significant stakes need to be involved- there in fact being such a game known as poker.

 

I'm sorry, I am a bit confused about meaning of "coffee housing" (English is not my first language), but I presume it is not intended as a compliment.

 

You do realize that it is as bridge actually was played and is played? For example, "Tempo discovery play" described above (which, I believe, is attributed to great Belladonna) has no sense unless declarer expects that defender would try and mislead him by variation in tempo. Reading bridge periodicals you can't miss how top experts are paying attention to opponents' behavior and many of them (probably, all) would directly admit that reading tells is a powerful weapon. Granted, that usually does not involves any "shooting" as you describe it; however, is it really necessary if opponents have no counter-weapon? We teach weak players that they may not pause with a singleton and then, as they cannot play smoothly with an honour, expert declarer has easy time reading them. Suppose we teach novices instead to always temporize slightly with a singleton or three smalls to protect themsleves - would not expert have a much harder time then? Sure, he would, and I don't see how our game would lose as a result.

 

I believe that Laws 73D2 and 73F2 should be eradicated (may be, stressing 73A a bit to discourage really long pauses instead).

As the very least we should get rid from the word "such" in 73D ("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."), making inference from all and any variations of tempo and manners be drawn at own risk of the player. Then we can penalize deceptors without encoraging "naivety" on behalf of their opponents. That would significantly straighten up incentives for players.

[blackshoe]

I'm sorry, I am a bit confused about meaning of "coffee housing" (English is not my first language), but I presume it is not intended as a compliment.

 

Coffee housing.

 

We rule here according to the laws as they are, not as we would like them to be. You can discuss how you think the laws should be changed in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum.

[Zelandakh]

We teach weak players that they may not pause with a singleton and then, as they cannot play smoothly with an honour, expert declarer has easy time reading them. Suppose we teach novices instead to always temporize slightly with a singleton or three smalls to protect themsleves

 

You should temporise slightly with a singleton or 3-small, or indeed any card that you play. The Laws require that you play in tempo in such situations, not that you play immediately. If declarer starts trying to blitz you then your counter-measure is simply to play at your normal tempo. You are not required to play at the speed that declarer would prefer.

[gombo121]

You should temporise slightly with a singleton or 3-small, or indeed any card that you play. The Laws require that you play in tempo in such situations, not that you play immediately. If declarer starts trying to blitz you then your counter-measure is simply to play at your normal tempo. You are not required to play at the speed that declarer would prefer.

 

C'mon.

That's a nice theory but it is just that - a theory. "Normal tempo" for anybody is no more than 1 (or 2, if your are clumsy) seconds per play - this is what it takes to pull out a card and put it on the table. Nobody would be able to maintain artificial timing of say 4 seconds per card through the entire hand and if somebody tries he would probably be ostracized for slow play.

And 1 second is too fast to think over the situation if you are not prepared for it.

[pran]

C'mon.

That's a nice theory but it is just that - a theory. "Normal tempo" for anybody is no more than 1 (or 2, if your are clumsy) seconds per play - this is what it takes to pull out a card and put it on the table. Nobody would be able to maintain artificial timing of say 4 seconds per card through the entire hand and if somebody tries he would probably be ostracized for slow play.

And 1 second is too fast to think over the situation if you are not prepared for it.

What is the usual time spent in playing out a hand after the auction is completed?

Very seldom do I see play been done in 1 minute which is the time spent with an average of one second per play. That is usually accomplished when the entire play is automatic with no need for anybody to think.

[aguahombre]

Pran, they are talking about tempo while following suit...usually only the tempo of defenders while declarer is playing cards...that one minute calculation is a bit silly.

[semeai]

C'mon.

That's a nice theory but it is just that - a theory. "Normal tempo" for anybody is no more than 1 (or 2, if your are clumsy) seconds per play - this is what it takes to pull out a card and put it on the table. Nobody would be able to maintain artificial timing of say 4 seconds per card through the entire hand and if somebody tries he would probably be ostracized for slow play.

And 1 second is too fast to think over the situation if you are not prepared for it.

 

Usually, i.e. when not playing speedball, and only sometimes when playing casually, I temporize slightly to keep an even tempo, both in bidding and on defense. A simple two second count, followed by taking the action, another second or so, is enough (two real seconds, not just counting to two). If the hand is at a point where declarer could have claimed, or claimed conditionally on e.g. a finesse, or other cases where it can't matter, I'll speed up.

 

What is the usual time spent in playing out a hand after the auction is completed?

Very seldom do I see play been done in 1 minute which is the time spent with an average of one second per play. That is usually accomplished when the entire play is automatic with no need for anybody to think.

 

Most hands have multiple longer pauses and you should really be looking at how much that pool of thinking time is reduced. If everyone is doing what I propose above, which amounts to 2+1 = 3 seconds per play, and there are, say, 10 tricks played on average before a claim, that's two minutes. Three rounds of bidding adds another half minute. So if there are 7.5 minutes/hand, 7.5-3.5 = 4 minutes are left for thinking instead of 7.5-1 = 6.5 being left for thinking if everyone played without pause when they can. Two and a half minutes per hand is not something to give up lightly, so it had better be worthwhile. Hopefully it is.

[AlexJonson]

I think we are reaching the planck number here in 'managing' our time. Should we just play.