Defender detaches card and places it face down..

[keeper2]

Swiss Teams Match

 

At trick three or four, at his turn to play on his partner's lead, a defender ponders for some time, detaches a card from his hand and places it face down in front of him and then proceeds to think for a further extended period (say a minute), before playing the card he has detached.

 

He appears to think this is correct procedure. Any comments?

 

If it matters the player in question has a reputation for slow play, as well as for trying to hurry others at their turn..

[mgoetze]

At trick three or four, at his turn to play on his partner's lead, a defender ponders for some time, detaches a card from his hand and places it face down in front of him and then proceeds to think for a further extended period (say a minute), before playing the card he has detached.

 

He appears to think this is correct procedure. Any comments?

 

While perhaps not ideal, I don't technically see a problem yet.

[paulg]

I presume that the player wishes to convey that he is thinking about the entire hand, not this trick. I would have thought that it is better not to turn your card over at the end of the trick, since everyone can think about the hand at that point. The player is 'hogging' table time and this seems unfair. I might easily get annoyed by it, which could mean that he is breaching Law 74A2.

 

But perhaps a proper TD should comment :)

[barmar]

If it matters the player in question has a reputation for slow play, as well as for trying to hurry others at their turn..

That could also be a breach of 74A2.

 

I don't think there's anything technically wrong with his style of playing a card. I think he can even legally return the card to his hand and play a different one, since it hasn't been held so that his partner could see what it was. There might be UI implications from this, although I'm not sure how different it would be from just taking a long time to play the card he finally chooses -- both taking a long time and changing your mind imply that you're having a difficult decision.

[jeffford76]

This has been discussed many times before. There is nothing illegal about this approach. Many people feel it is rude, and many other people think it's rude to say that it's rude since it's legal.

 

Personally I think if you're still thinking about this trick, you shouldn't detach a card, and if you're thinking about the rest of the hand to come you should play face up and just leave the card face up at the end of the trick so that other people can spend the time thinking with the same information you have.

[barmar]

I suspect it's like card-snapping -- an annoying habit some people have that's hard for them to break.

 

You have to break people of habits like these early, or it's too late. Like when you see a newbie fingering the bidding box, suggest to them (nicely) that they should wait until they've decided on their bid before touching it.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's just a bad habit - in my experience the people who do this have the good intention of trying to avoid misleading the opponents. There's a similar and equally irritating group of people who announce that they're not thinking about the current trick, but still don't play a card until they've finished thinking about the causes of the Franco-Prussian War or whatever it is that's occupying their time.

 

Both groups seem not to understand that they can achieve the same effect by turning their card face-up and leaving it like that whilst they think; or they understand that they could do this, but don't understand why what they actually do is unfair and annoying.

[Phil]

I will do this at T1 when declarer quickly calls for a card from dummy. There are players that 'game' here and tank over the trick when they really don't have a problem.

 

In the middle of the hand, its a little unusual, but I wouldn't be frosted by it.

 

I will leave the rules aspect of this approach to others.

[Phil]

Both groups seem not to understand that they can achieve the same effect by turning their card face-up and leaving it like that whilst they think; or they understand that they could do this, but don't understand why what they actually do is unfair and annoying.

 

Yes, but once the card is exposed, isn't it considered 'played'? I like the idea, since everyone gets the chance to process this information and simultaneously think about the hand.

[wyman]

I do this rarely, mostly 3rd in hand because it's easier than having LHO win and play immediately, seeing partner play, having declarer call from dummy over your objection, and having to explain to everyone that you'd like all the cards from the previous trick out please. Then there's "what do we do with these cards" issues, and it's just a gigantic mess, plus Bessie and Gertrude are flustered and snitty now, and it all could have been avoided.

 

I agree that it's far better to play your card face up and think at the end of the trick, but in practice, this can be far easier in certain situations.

[gnasher]

I will do this at T1 when declarer quickly calls for a card from dummy. There are players that 'game' here and tank over the trick when they really don't have a problem.

If by "game" you mean that it's deceitful or otherwise improper for third hand to pause in this situation, I don't agree. Why should third-hand allow declarer to gain an advantage by playing quickly?

 

In England, this practice is supported by the regulations, in 73.3.2 of the White Book: "If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary."

Edited March 12, 2012 by gnasher

[blackshoe]

This has been discussed many times before. There is nothing illegal about this approach. Many people feel it is rude, and many other people think it's rude to say that it's rude since it's legal.

 

Personally I think if you're still thinking about this trick, you shouldn't detach a card, and if you're thinking about the rest of the hand to come you should play face up and just leave the card face up at the end of the trick so that other people can spend the time thinking with the same information you have.

Saying that placing a card face down is rude is not per se rude, whether or not the placing of the card is legal. The way you say it's rude might be rude.

 

I don't think it's just a bad habit - in my experience the people who do this have the good intention of trying to avoid misleading the opponents. There's a similar and equally irritating group of people who announce that they're not thinking about the current trick, but still don't play a card until they've finished thinking about the causes of the Franco-Prussian War or whatever it is that's occupying their time.

 

Both groups seem not to understand that they can achieve the same effect by turning their card face-up and leaving it like that whilst they think; or they understand that they could do this, but don't understand why what they actually do is unfair and annoying.

The problem with leaving the card face up is that declarer will often, and even partner will sometimes, ignore it and lead to the next trick. Then, as someone's already pointed out, you have a bunch of problems.

 

If by "game" you mean that it's deceitful or otherwise improper for third hand to pause in this situation, I don't agree. Why should third-hand allow declarer to gain an advantage by playing quickly?

 

In England, this practice is supported by the regulations, in 73.3.2 of the White Book: "If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary."

A good regulation, I think. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the question what to do at later tricks when you want to think.

[Phil]

If by "game" you mean that it's deceitful or otherwise improper for third hand to pause in this situation, I don't agree. Why should third-hand allow declarer to gain an advantage by playing quickly?

 

In England, this practice is supported by the regulations (73.3.2 of the White Book).

 

I looked up 73.3.2 (actually its 73.2.2 - found here: White Book) and I am surprised because it runs counter to my understanding about active ethics (which are not codified, mind you), because if:

 

- declarer takes less than 5 seconds to play (i.e., does not pause), and

- if I really don't have a problem, and

- if I don't need to consider the entire hand for my trick one play, then

 

I will try to slow the tempo down by 7-10 seconds before I detach a card, if no other reason to let my partner catch a breath. If it looks like I (or partner) will have some "crunch point" decisions early, then I will detach and put my card face-down, but not having played the trick. I hate having to do this, but if my card is turned over and considered 'played' and declarer can proceed to shotgun T2 like he did T1, then I do not have a choice.

 

73.2.2 supports your view and it suggests that it is OK to wait as long as a defender needs if declarer does not pause at T1. This feels a little sleazy to me, and the regulation (or at least interpretation) seems to be punitive for a declarer who does not pause at T1 because it gives license to a defender to use whatever time he needs to think about the ramifications of the Grecian debt swap and take an unnecessary amount of time before detaching a card.

[blackshoe]

What's so important about detaching a card?

[Phil]

What's so important about detaching a card?

 

Because you don't deceive declarer about your tempo.

[barmar]

I think the intent is that 3rd hand should be allowed time to plan their entire defense, and this planning may sometimes affect their choice of play to this trick. Their tempo shouldn't distinguish whether they're thinking about the trick or the whole hand, and declarer can't force hyim to play quickly to this trick simply by playing quickly himself.

[blackshoe]

Because you don't deceive declarer about your tempo.

 

I don't know what this means. My initial reaction was "you can't deceive declarer about your tempo, because he can see it".

[barmar]

The problem with leaving the card face up is that declarer will often, and even partner will sometimes, ignore it and lead to the next trick. Then, as someone's already pointed out, you have a bunch of problems.

I've very rarely encountered anyone doing that. They almost always wait for you to quit the trick.

 

On the other hand, if you turn over the card, they almost always will lead to the next trick relatively quickly.

[Phil]

I don't know what this means. My initial reaction was "you can't deceive declarer about your tempo, because he can see it".

 

You asked what was so important about detaching a card and I answered the question.

 

If I don't detach a card when I don't have a problem then I am coffeehousing. Is this so different than taking 30 seconds to play a singleton?

[blackshoe]

I've very rarely encountered anyone doing that. They almost always wait for you to quit the trick.

 

On the other hand, if you turn over the card, they almost always will lead to the next trick relatively quickly.

 

We have different experiences. In mine they don't almost always wait.

 

If you turn over the card, of course they often lead to the next trick fairly quickly. Who said otherwise?

[blackshoe]

You asked what was so important about detaching a card and I answered the question.

 

If I don't detach a card when I don't have a problem then I am coffeehousing. Is this so different than taking 30 seconds to play a singleton?

 

I still don't get it. If you don't have a problem, you play in tempo. Detaching a card is only part of that. Or are you equating detaching a card with placing it face down?

[blackshoe]

Introduction to the laws: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure…

 

The laws don't define a procedure for informing the opponents that you want some time to think about the hand or for taking time to think about the hand* (except as the RA may specify by regulation). Apparently, therefore, in the absence of a pertinent regulation, it is not correct to do so. IOW, if you can't think fast, you lose. I suppose discussion of that is best held in "changing laws".

 

*They do say that "unintentionally to vary tempo" is not normally an infraction, but that's a different thing, I think.

[Phil]

Or are you equating detaching a card with placing it face down?

 

Yes.

 

I think detaching a card and keeping it suspended in midair or reattaching it could create the kind problems we are trying to solve.

[Vampyr]

if you can't think fast, you lose. I suppose discussion of that is best held in "changing laws".

 

No, it was discussed earlier in the thread that one can simply delay quitting one's card to a trick in order to gain time to think. This is common procedure where I play.

 

As for others leading to the next trick anyway, I think that this would be playing a fifth card to a trick. I can't imagine anyone doing that, though, except by accident.

[blackshoe]

No, it was discussed earlier in the thread that one can simply delay quitting one's card to a trick in order to gain time to think. This is common procedure where I play.

 

As for others leading to the next trick anyway, I think that this would be playing a fifth card to a trick. I can't imagine anyone doing that, though, except by accident.

 

Would it? You'd play Hell convincing a club director around here to rule that way.

 

It is not at all unusual for the other players to quit the trick when you haven't, and for one of them then to lead to the next trick.

 

In any case the custom of leaving a card face up to indicate a desire for time to think is not defined as correct procedure in the laws; therefore it is not correct procedure. So where the custom exists, it may work okay, but where it does not exist, you're stuck.