Hesitations at trick one, third hand

[Cascade]

While I don't have the details my recollection is that there has been at least one hesitation at trick one in a world championship in which the hesitator was ruled against.

 

Its all very well having so called 'accepted practices' but when those practices are not written into the laws and regulations it is very hard to legitimately rule in favour of the 'accepted practice'. This is especially so when the laws provide a provision for a mandated trick one pause and the regulating authority in their wisdom have not so mandated.

 

Richard Hills provided me with the following information

 

"The other appeal, which seems to be the one you recall, was due to the clash of these two Laws ->

 

Law 73A2

 

Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

 

Law 73D2

 

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.

 

An ACBL defender hesitated at trick one in accordance with an ACBL-land regulation requiring a mandatory pause. But no such regulation existed in the Netherlands, so the Dutch declarer was outraged that the ACBL defender had hesitated with a singleton. The decisive factor was that the WBF had not then adopted such a trick one mandatory pause regulation, thus the ACBL team was definitely the offending side. However, the Appeals Committee erred in adjusting the score, since the ACBL infraction did not cause any damage."

 

This was from the 1989 Venice Cup in Perth, Australia.

 

We had a subsequent discussion about whether or not there was in fact an ACBL regulation. It maybe that it was just the accepted common practice.

[bluejak]

It may have been a correct decision in 1989 but in my view the world has moved forward. In 2011 I believe it is accepted that pausing at trick one is normal. There is thus no clash between Laws 73A2 and 73D2 because a trick one pause being normal cannot mislead an opponent.

[Cascade]

Your normal does not mean that it does not contain information or that it will not mislead and therefore it is not subject to lawful rectification should a problem arise:

 

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

 

If the regulating authority does not mandate a trick one pause then variations in tempo at trick one will communicate illegally information to partner and potentially mislead the opponents and therefore are subject to legal remedies.

 

In my view the EBU regulation that stops short of mandating a trick one pause simply overlooks the problems that are caused by variations in tempo at that trick. Basically for example it allows but does not require a player to think at trick even without a problem to mask the fact that they have a singleton or some other automatic play.

 

To my mind only no regulation and deal properly with any problems that are created by variations in tempo or a regulation requiring a mandatory pause as provided for in the laws are the only sensible solutions for trick one tempo problems.

[blackshoe]

If the regulating authority does not mandate a trick one pause then variations in tempo at trick one will communicate illegally information to partner and potentially mislead the opponents and therefore are subject to legal remedies.

 

"Will" is way too strong. "May", at most.

[Cascade]

"Will" is way too strong. "May", at most.

 

I did not intend for this to mean necessarily on every occasion. Just that it will occur as opposed to it will not occur.

 

I should perhaps have used more consistent language for both the issue of transmitting information to partner and deceiving declarer.

[barmar]

If the regulating authority does not mandate a trick one pause then variations in tempo at trick one will communicate illegally information to partner and potentially mislead the opponents and therefore are subject to legal remedies.

If hesitations at trick one are normal, then hesitating there is not a "variation in tempo". Playing quickly would be the variation.

[Cascade]

"1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to

maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner."

 

The standard required is a steady tempo not one where there are hesitations on some tricks and not on others.

 

There is a law that specific allows for a mandatory trick one pause. Why is it so difficult for regulating authorities to mandate such a pause if that is what is expected?

[blackshoe]

I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

[Trinidad]

Perhaps the "solution" is to declare the game unplayable, and take up solitaire. :blink:

 

I said all solutions are flawed. They are. If you play to trick one in "normal tempo" for play to trick one, when declarer has played quickly from dummy and you have a singleton, sooner or later there will be a hue and cry. It's easy to say that the TD should rule "no infraction" in such cases, but it is human — and directors are human — to get a saying like 'never hesitate with a singleton' in one's head, and to reflexively rule on that basis rather than on the law. The higher the level of play, the less likely this should be, but clubs generally aren't at such a high level, and club TDs, particularly in North America, don't get the kind of training that the "pros" do.

I would consider it a no-no when TDs get a saying like 'never hesitate with a singleton' in their head.

 

The Laws say that you must have a bridge reason for your thinking. If declarer plays fast at trick 1, third hand by definition has a bridge reason to think. The fact that declarer doesn't care about planning his play, doesn't mean that third hand is not allowed to care either.

 

When I lived and played in the USA, I never had a problem when I took time at trick 1 when playing a singleton. And in Europe it is completely normal to plan your play at trick 1. A TD who would rule that you are not allowed to think at trick 1 with a singleton would be laughed out of the room at any level. As a TD, I would not dream about giving such a ruling (and I don't have to because I have never been asked since the players understand this situation very well).

 

Rik

[barmar]

There is a law that specific allows for a mandatory trick one pause. Why is it so difficult for regulating authorities to mandate such a pause if that is what is expected?

Because it would be enforced as well as the stop card rules.

 

So instead of mandating the pause, it's just silently ALLOWED because it's normal. Since it's common, it doesn't generally transmit UI or mislead opponents.

[mgoetze]

Because it would be enforced as well as the stop card rules.

 

That answer is pretty much exclusive to the ACBL, I guess.

[bluejak]

There is a law that specific allows for a mandatory trick one pause. Why is it so difficult for regulating authorities to mandate such a pause if that is what is expected?

I don't know, but what has that got to do with anything? We have a situation with a generally agreed international interpretation. If you wish to challenge it, please do so in the relevant forum. All you are doing here is trying to confuse some people who may not realise it is a generally agreed international interpretation.

[Cascade]

I don't know, but what has that got to do with anything? We have a situation with a generally agreed international interpretation. If you wish to challenge it, please do so in the relevant forum. All you are doing here is trying to confuse some people who may not realise it is a generally agreed international interpretation.

 

I am not convinced.

 

The only appeal I know about this issue was resolved against the trick one tempo break.

 

Even if it is a standard practice it is a practice that is outside the laws of the game. The game would be better if the laws were followed.

 

I would have thought that it would be better to make a 'Simple Ruling' based on what the law book says than on some errant practice.

[bluejak]

I am sure you are wrong. Basing Simple Rulings on going against normal interpretations is not the method: we want TDs and players to see consistent law-giving, not some inconsistent method based on a minority view.

 

Furthermore, this interpretation is not against the Laws.

[Cascade]

I am sure you are wrong. Basing Simple Rulings on going against normal interpretations is not the method: we want TDs and players to see consistent law-giving, not some inconsistent method based on a minority view.

 

Furthermore, this interpretation is not against the Laws.

 

As far as I can tell essentially the same law applied in 1989 in Perth - the parenthetical comment in Law 73A2 "(however, sponsoring organizations ..." has been removed from the parentheses and become a sentence in its own right beginning "But Regulating Authorities ...".

 

In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.

 

By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.

 

Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.

 

It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.

 

I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".

 

In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.

 

Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:

 

1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks

 

2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.

 

Anything else is fraught with issues.

[blackshoe]

Nobody rules on the basis of non-existent regulations.

[cloa513]

As far as I can tell essentially the same law applied in 1989 in Perth - the parenthetical comment in Law 73A2 "(however, sponsoring organizations ..." has been removed from the parentheses and become a sentence in its own right beginning "But Regulating Authorities ...".

 

In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.

 

By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.

 

Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.

 

It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.

 

I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".

 

In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.

 

Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:

 

1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks

 

2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.

 

Anything else is fraught with issues.

Which Perth?

[Cascade]

Which Perth?

 

see above

 

Venice Cup, Perth, Australia 1989.

[Free]

In theory a stop-procedure for the first trick (for example opening leader places a stop card, until he removes it his partner may not play a card, dummy can do whatever he wants) could solve hesitation issues similar to the stop-procedure of jumps. However, in practice they probably won't solve that much, especially if people don't always use their stop card...

 

At the moment it's accepted that you can think in the first trick, even with a singleton. If you always think, then there can't be any problems, but when you vary you create UI.

[axman]

As far as I can tell essentially the same law applied in 1989 in Perth - the parenthetical comment in Law 73A2 "(however, sponsoring organizations ..." has been removed from the parentheses and become a sentence in its own right beginning "But Regulating Authorities ...".

 

In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.

 

By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.

 

Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.

 

It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.

 

I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".

 

In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.

 

Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:

 

1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks

 

2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.

 

Anything else is fraught with issues.

 

When I read this note I took pause, a rather lengthy pause. As I have long been an advocate of pauses for pre-auction, skip bids, and T1 play I was astonished by what I found after I spent a couple hours yesterday searching for ACBL regs and commentary on T1 pauses. I discovered zilch.

 

That revelation having been made I am inclined to concur with Mr. Burrows that to indemnify the player for a T1 pause an appropriate regulation currently is required. I applaud your language skill.

 

As such, the only avenue of solution for the player that does not want a large number of bad scores from play less skillful than he is capable of, or, from adjustments imposed by a punitive FLB is to adopt as his normal tempo [as provided by L73D1]- the tempo at T1 that he most of the time would need to make his plan. This of course would necessitate that SO create contests that afford 12 minutes per board rather than the customary 7 odd minutes.

 

That bridge authorities have declined for so long from establishing satisfactory regulations for pre-auction, skip bids, and T1 play suggests that they are unwilling to make them- in spite of the benefits that are derived every board from the problems of the player that are solved.