Leading to tricks after the first

[Cascade]

We have a method of playing the game: to play otherwise involves seriously upsetting other people. The fact that there is no Law that explicitly says the way it is played is not relevant: this is not BLML. We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

 

We have a Law that forbids upsetting other people needlessly: you have a player who upsets other people needlessly and continues to do so when warned.

 

It is not dictatorial to give such a person a DP: it is normal TD practice.

 

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

 

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

[pran]

I must say that I really do not understand the attitudes of bluejak and blackshoe here, and I do indeed wonder what experiences they can have had with "premature" leads of the kind that is the theme in this thread?

 

What usually has happened in such situations I have seen is that a player leads in tempo after winning a trick, one of the other two players (excluding dummy) says "hold it" (or words to that effect) and "may I see the last trick please". (Or he just a little bit late just turns his played card face down without any remark at all.)

 

This does not annoy or embarrass anybody, the players simply face their cards, not uncommonly with a "sorry", and the player who halted the play eventually turns his own card face down, frequently with a "thank you", after which play continues as if no irregularity has occurred.

 

I have never seen any call for director in such cases and I strongly believe that a player calling the director in a situation like that would be considered infracting Law 74B5 in any environment where I play or conduct!

[blackshoe]

You are apparently applying Law 74B5 not because of the manner in which the TD was called or addressed, but because he was called at all. That is illegal.

[Vampyr]

I must say that I really do not understand the attitudes of bluejak and blackshoe here, and I do indeed wonder what experiences they can have had with "premature" leads of the kind that is the theme in this thread?

 

What usually has happened in such situations I have seen is that a player leads in tempo after winning a trick, one of the other two players (excluding dummy) says "hold it" (or words to that effect) and "may I see the last trick please". (Or he just a little bit late just turns his played card face down without any remark at all.)

 

This does not annoy or embarrass anybody, the players simply face their cards, not uncommonly with a "sorry", and the player who halted the play eventually turns his own card face down, frequently with a "thank you", after which play continues as if no irregularity has occurred.

 

What you are talking about is done accidentally. Bluejak is discussing penalising a player deliberately, as the rest of your lot are maintaining that since it is (arguably) not specifically prohibited in the laws, it is appropriate to lead early to a trick. Apparently the purpose is to pressure another player into matching your tempo.

[bluejak]

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

 

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

Deliberately misquoting me might be fun, but as an argumentative technique it stinks.

 

No, of course a player who holds the game up unnecessarily is also causing trouble. I have never suggested that any TD rules without finding out the facts. But delaying game is rarely a deliberate tactic: it normally comes from thinking, which is perfectly legal.

 

If and only if a TD decides that someone's actions amounted to an unnecessary delay of game then he might give a player an instruction: if the player refuses to follow the instruction of course a DP is suitable.

 

:ph34r:

 

I must say that I really do not understand the attitudes of bluejak and blackshoe here, and I do indeed wonder what experiences they can have had with "premature" leads of the kind that is the theme in this thread?

 

What usually has happened in such situations I have seen is that a player leads in tempo after winning a trick, one of the other two players (excluding dummy) says "hold it" (or words to that effect) and "may I see the last trick please". (Or he just a little bit late just turns his played card face down without any remark at all.)

 

This does not annoy or embarrass anybody, the players simply face their cards, not uncommonly with a "sorry", and the player who halted the play eventually turns his own card face down, frequently with a "thank you", after which play continues as if no irregularity has occurred.

 

I have never seen any call for director in such cases and I strongly believe that a player calling the director in a situation like that would be considered infracting Law 74B5 in any environment where I play or conduct!

Of course the suggestions in this thread do not normally happen, pran, why ever you think they happen regularly is beyond me. But the whole idea of these forums is to help people in various situations, some of which might be extremely rare.

 

So saying you have never seen such a situation helps not at all: suppose next week you are called to a table where a player is not waiting for others to finish looking at a trick before the next one and is upsetting the other players at the table: are you really going to say to yourself "This never happens so I am not going to deal with it?".

 

Now, you deal with it by giving the player an instruction, which he ignores, and you are recalled: you give him the instruction again, which he ignores, and you are recalled. Are you seriously telling me you would not issue a DP "because this situation has never happened before in your experience"?

[Vampyr]

Is there a problem? Possibly. It seems likely to be confusing, at best, to have five cards face up on the table when one is trying to work out the significance of the plays to the last trick. At worst, the leader may turn the wrong card.

 

Yes, I too have been thinking that the latter is a real possibility.

 

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

 

No, because asking once should be enough.

[Cascade]

We have a method of playing the game: to play otherwise involves seriously upsetting other people. The fact that there is no Law that explicitly says the way it is played is not relevant: this is not BLML. We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

 

We have a Law that forbids upsetting other people needlessly: you have a player who upsets other people needlessly and continues to do so when warned.

 

It is not dictatorial to give such a person a DP: it is normal TD practice.

 

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

 

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

 

Deliberately misquoting me might be fun, but as an argumentative technique it stinks.

 

I quoted precisely what you wrote.

 

How is this a misquote?

 

How is it deliberate?

 

How does it stink?

[Cascade]

No, because asking once should be enough.

 

Indeed it should.

 

And showing once should also be enough.

 

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen why would I need to leave my card face up any longer?

 

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen and turned my card down why would the other player need to see the card again?

[bluejak]

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

Having produced a totally different situation where there was no refusal to follow a TD's instructions I consider this a deliberate misquote. You know perfectly well that a DP is not suitable for thinking and suggesting it is would be pointless if it were not that some people do not check when you quote something and so may be misled by you.

[Vampyr]

Indeed it should.

 

And showing once should also be enough.

 

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen why would I need to leave my card face up any longer?

 

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen and turned my card down why would the other player need to see the card again?

 

Some people prefer to see all of the cards while they think about what is going on in the hand. The normal procedure is that someone asks to see the trick, those who have turned their cards over turn them face-up, and then the person who requested to see the cards turns his own card face-down and everyone else does the same. I believe that this procedure is required by the laws, but even if it weren't, what advantage do you see to flashing your card and then turning it back face-down?

[Cascade]

Some people prefer to see all of the cards while they think about what is going on in the hand. The normal procedure is that someone asks to see the trick, those who have turned their cards over turn them face-up, and then the person who requested to see the cards turns his own card face-down and everyone else does the same. I believe that this procedure is required by the laws, but even if it weren't, what advantage do you see to flashing your card and then turning it back face-down?

 

Following the law.

 

Specifically turning one's card down when four cards have been played to the trick. Not sometime later controlled by someone who has no explicit right to control the tempo of the table.

[blackshoe]

For the record, if someone asks me (legally) to show my already turned card, I turn it back and and leave it up until either he says "thank you" or some such, or turns his own card face down. I'm not saying doing anything else is illegal, I'm saying I think that's an appropriate level of courtesy at the table. Edited October 11, 2011 by blackshoe
deleted a comment some posters found offensive.

[pran]

You are apparently applying Law 74B5 not because of the manner in which the TD was called or addressed, but because he was called at all. That is illegal.

No, because the call for the Director is

summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

 

Added after seeing your last post: Instead of calling the Director I think what you say there is the only acceptable way of handling the situation. And I take the liberty to state that we apparently have identical views on this. Having already led (in turn) to the next trick should not cause any problem and is immaterial here.

[Vampyr]

Wayne, you're carrying your "Secretary Bird" persona too far. If you're really that big a prick at the table, I don't think anyone would enjoy playing against you.

 

I don't know Wayne myself, but I think that it's entirely possible that he and the others have no intention of engaging in these antics at the table, and are just maintaining their position to be outrageous.

[shyams]

I would add "This lead should (shall?) not be made until all four players have quitted the last trick (see Laws 45G, 65A, and 66A)"

It would certainly help if it was specific. While currently I am sure it is being interpreted sensibly, relevant wording would be better.

These (first) two posts pretty much cover the gist of what may need to change in the regulation. The rest of it seems to go a bit off-track.

 

In my opinion, while Vampyr and others are talking about players "flashing cards in a twirling motion", while Cascade and others are approaching it from an angle of one player being allowed to slow down table tempo(?) deliberately.

 

Law 65A defines when a trick is completed

Law 65A defines a completed trick. It does not define when the cards should be turned over. Perhaps it should -- e.g. a defender may not delay turning over his card by more than [x] seconds after his partner has done so; declarer may not delay turning over his card by more than [x] seconds after dummy has done so.

 

As defender, I have seen dummies turn their card over but not declarer -- followed by a defender leading to next trick to the annoyance of some declarers. My point is: if declarer did not want the current trick to be quitted why did he/she not prohibit dummy from turning over the card?

 

We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

I think this is the main point. If bluejak found that a player was slowing down the game by repeatedly keeping his/her card face up on the table, I guess he would not hesitate to warn the "slow player" instead of the "fast leader".

 

In other words, some of the sidetracked discussions here are moot.

 

Finally,

Wayne, you're carrying your "Secretary Bird" persona too far. If you're really that big a prick at the table, I don't think anyone would enjoy playing against you.

Blackshoe, you are a forum moderator. I don't think the 2nd sentence was necessary.

[Vampyr]

Cascade and others are approaching it from an angle of one player being allowed to slow down table tempo(?) deliberately.

 

If a player attempts to slow down the "table tempo" deliberately, that is a disciplinary matter. Normally a player will cause play to be delayed briefly in order to think, and this is quite proper.

[Vampyr]

If a player attempts to slow down the "table tempo" deliberately, that is a disciplinary matter.

 

I think I wrote too quickly here. There are some players who attempt to speed up the play, and their opponents, who can't play properly at lightning speed, sometimes get sucked in and play just as quickly, to their detriment. In this case it is appropriate to deliberately slow down the tempo of play.

 

What I was referring to in the quote above, and what cascade is apparently worrying about, is people who slow the play in order to disconcert the opponents.

[blackshoe]

No, because the call for the Director is

 

summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

 

Added after seeing your last post: Instead of calling the Director I think what you say there is the only acceptable way of handling the situation. And I take the liberty to state that we apparently have identical views on this. Having already led (in turn) to the next trick should not cause any problem and is immaterial here.

 

What I said was that it was not the manner, but the calling itself, that you seem to consider discourteous. Calling the director is a right of every player. Absent continuous and frivolous calls, exercising that right cannot in itself be discourteous to anyone.

 

Our views are not identical, because I can see the possibility of a fifth card on the table causing problems, and you apparently cannot. Now it does occur to me to wonder what the laws should tell the leader to do with that card before facing his card from the previous trick. I suppose it would be best for him to keep his hand on the latter card.

 

I don't know Wayne myself, but I think that it's entirely possible that he and the others have no intention of engaging in these antics at the table, and are just maintaining their position to be outrageous.

 

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. B-)

 

Blackshoe, you are a forum moderator. I don't think the 2nd sentence was necessary.

 

Yes, I'm a forum moderator. I've been doing that, in various genres, for thirty years. As for the sentence, no, it wasn't necessary. So what? Was it out of line? I don't think so, or I wouldn't have posted it.

[AlexJonson]

I thought the comment was out of line and it's a pity we can't have a view from a 'moderator'.

[Cascade]

Having produced a totally different situation where there was no refusal to follow a TD's instructions I consider this a deliberate misquote. You know perfectly well that a DP is not suitable for thinking and suggesting it is would be pointless if it were not that some people do not check when you quote something and so may be misled by you.

 

So I missed out a step where the director gave an instruction. Yes I understand it an important step.

 

My point was are you going to treat both sides who are annoying their opponents by there actions in the same way.

 

That is the player delaying the game annoying the player who wants to play to the next trick and the player who is turning his card over and leading to the next trick. Do you warn them both and slap them both with a DP if they don't comply?

[Cascade]

I don't know Wayne myself, but I think that it's entirely possible that he and the others have no intention of engaging in these antics at the table, and are just maintaining their position to be outrageous.

 

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

[Vampyr]

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

 

What do you mean by "buying time to think"? If other players feel the way you do, you have to keep all the cards faced if you wish to think at the end of the trick; otherwise the opponents might lead to the next trick before you are ready.

 

Now, if you let the opponent lead before you are ready, you may not have planned whatever action you were going to take on the next trick, so you may not do it smoothly. Is this the problem? Do you feel that you have the right to know every time the play of a card is critical for the opponent, and worry that you lose that advantage if he takes the time to plan several tricks in advance or attempts to figure out what is going on in the hand?

 

Sorry, but you don't have the right to force opponents to give away their holdings by thinking only before they play a card.

[blackshoe]

I thought the comment was out of line and it's a pity we can't have a view from a 'moderator'.

 

You don't want a view from a moderator, you want a view from a moderator who agrees with you.

[barmar]

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

It's also necessary to exercise your right to have everyone else face their cards of the last trick.

 

Traditional practice is that the simple act of keeping your card faced is recognized as implying this request. And once you comply, he signals that he no longer needs to see your cards by turning his card. It's a simple, intuitive convention.

[bluejak]

I thought the comment was out of line and it's a pity we can't have a view from a 'moderator'.

Since the comment used the word 'if' and since it was a direct consequence of the posts I think it would be acceptable from anyone else. Therefore it is just as acceptable from Ed who follows the same rules.

 

If someone slows play down in an unacceptable fashion for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent then the TD has the power to deal with it. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

The discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by not showing his card when asked for a reasonable time: no, he isn't.

 

Also the discussion is whether a player is allowed to disconcert opponents by leading to the next trick with the current one not quitted: no, he isn't.

 

The reasons given for these actions are fairly fatuous which is what seems to be winding several other people up.

 

Just to summarise: bad behaviour is controlled by the Laws. Bad behaviour just because a player feels someone else is behaving badly is illegal and unnecessary. Leading to the next trick when the present is not quitted is bad behaviour.