Defender detaches card and places it face down..

[bluejak]

So what? I am sorry, I do believe in being considerate, but not to the benefit of the other side and the detriment of my own.

 

I do not like this straw man argument. I have argued in several different ways and rather than refute my arguments, some people seem to think it easier to attack me personally. Not everyone, certainly, Vampyr's post was reasonable, I just disagree strongly with this idea.

 

There seems to be a feeling that if a player wants to think when he feels like it the other people have a right to be completely intolerant, but he should be overly considerate of them. That is total rubbish. Put it another way, people whose opponents are thinking should learn to be tolerant.

[gnasher]

some people seem to think it easier to attack me personally

I can't see any personal attacks on you in this thread. Who do you think has attacked you personally, and when?

 

There seems to be a feeling that if a player wants to think when he feels like it the other people have a right to be completely intolerant, but he should be overly considerate of them.

I can't see any posts where anyone expressed that feeling either.

Edited March 20, 2012 by gnasher

[gnasher]

So what? I am sorry, I do believe in being considerate, but not to the benefit of the other side and the detriment of my own.

Suppose that you were to play your card face up, and then your side didn't play to the next trick until your card has been turned down. What detriment would your side suffer?

[bluejak]

I have not been allowed to think at the time I want to in the trick.

[gordontd]

I have not been allowed to think at the time I want to in the trick.

Sure you have. Or do you stop thinking when you put a card face-up?

 

The only people who have been prevented from thinking are your opponents if you put the card face-down, because you are with-holding from them the information that you have.

[bluejak]

So if I take time over my lead, because I am thinking about the whole hand, this is unfair on opponents because they should be allowed to think as well? That's ridiculous.

[sasioc]

With regard to people continuing play when you have not quit the previous trick, why don't you just say "sorry, the last trick has not been quit" when oppo lead? It also does not take much training to get a partner to wait for you..

 

Bluejak, I think the thing here is that no one is saying you *may not* think whenever you wish. Of course you may. They are merely saying that they consider it to be more courteous to think in the manner they suggest, because this avoids you thinking for a bit before playing a card and declarer then having to have their own think five minutes later, when they can see what you have played. This doesn't just waste oppos' time, it wastes everyone's time. This is a matter of etiquette, not a matter of law - not entirely dissimilar to if someone were to eat only with their hands and with their mouth open. They probably wouldn't be arrested but might not have company for dinner very often!

 

Another point, that no one has raised so far, is that I have had opponents place a card face down, occasionally saying that they are not thinking about the current trick, and then change it after a while. Although I'm not sure what the actual rules about this are, it doesn't seem ideal for someone to imply or state that they are not thinking about the current trick and then demonstrate that they actually were.

[barmar]

The argument for considering it unfair is this: During the time that the player is thinking, he knows what card he is going to play to this trick. Therefore he has more information during that period, and is able to use the time more effectively than anyone else. If the other players at the table do their strategic thinking after playing to a trick, they do not have the same advantage.

I have two problems with this.

 

1. If you don't like him playing his card face down and then thinking, his alternative is to keep the card he plans to play in his hand while thinking. He still gets the same amount of time to think, and he still knows what card he's going to play while he's doing his thinking. Or is this not allowed because it would violate the Law against misleading opponents, since it seems like he's thinking about what to play to that trick? But if he plays this card quickly, he'll still have to think eventually -- if everyone plays to this trick and the next trick quickly, he'll have to think before making the next play. So he can't win unless he NEVER stops to think.

 

2. I don't know about you, but when my opponent goes into the tank I use that time to think. I wonder what type of problem he's having, and consider what I'll do for each play he might make. This allows me to play in tempo when he finally faces his card.

[gnasher]

I have two problems with this.

 

1. If you don't like him playing his card face down and then thinking, his alternative is to keep the card he plans to play in his hand while thinking. He still gets the same amount of time to think, and he still knows what card he's going to play while he's doing his thinking. Or is this not allowed because it would violate the Law against misleading opponents, since it seems like he's thinking about what to play to that trick?

I was comparing specifically these two:

(1) Decide what to play; play your card face-up; delay any further play whilst you consider the entire hand.

(2) Decide what to play; indicate that you have so decided; delay facing your card whilst you consider the entire hand.

 

You have just described a third approach:

(3) Decide what to play, but don't tell anyone that you have done so; delay facing your card whilst you consider the entire hand.

 

Some would argue that (3) misleads the opponents. I would argue that, like (2), it is an unfair use of the table's time, though I think it's reasonable and normal for someone to take a bit of time before playing to trick one.

 

But if he plays this card quickly, he'll still have to think eventually -- if everyone plays to this trick and the next trick quickly, he'll have to think before making the next play. So he can't win unless he NEVER stops to think.

As I and others have said several times, if neither you nor your partner plays to the next trick until the current trick has been quitted, it is impossible to be in the position that you describe.

 

2. I don't know about you, but when my opponent goes into the tank I use that time to think. I wonder what type of problem he's having, and consider what I'll do for each play he might make. This allows me to play in tempo when he finally faces his card.

In other words, he is able to think *knowing* what he's going to play; you are expected to think not knowing what he is going to play. Therefore he is able to use the time more effectively than you are.

[axman]

With regard to people continuing play when you have not quit the previous trick, why don't you just say "sorry, the last trick has not been quit" when oppo lead? It also does not take much training to get a partner to wait for you..

 

Bluejak, I think the thing here is that no one is saying you *may not* think whenever you wish. Of course you may. They are merely saying that they consider it to be more courteous to think in the manner they suggest, because this avoids you thinking for a bit before playing a card and declarer then having to have their own think five minutes later, when they can see what you have played. This doesn't just waste oppos' time, it wastes everyone's time. This is a matter of etiquette, not a matter of law - not entirely dissimilar to if someone were to eat only with their hands and with their mouth open. They probably wouldn't be arrested but might not have company for dinner very often!

 

Another point, that no one has raised so far, is that I have had opponents place a card face down, occasionally saying that they are not thinking about the current trick, and then change it after a while. Although I'm not sure what the actual rules about this are, it doesn't seem ideal for someone to imply or state that they are not thinking about the current trick and then demonstrate that they actually were.

 

I seem to have some recollection that there is a provision of law that it is a breach of propriety to detach a card [with the intention of] not playing it forthwith.

[Zelandakh]

You are probably thinking of:

"As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

3. detaching a card before it is his turn to play."

 

However a better try is perhaps

"Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing."

 

I have to admit this is not something I get too worked up about. What does annoy me is when someone holds their card out fully visible to me (and often also to partner) but not in such a way that it can be considered played while they um and ah about their decision. Perhaps this approach would be a good one to adopt under Andy's objections though. Now noone can proceed (since no card is played) but opponents can think with full information. Is it really how we want bridge to be played that players have to resort to such tactics though?

[Vampyr]

I have not been allowed to think at the time I want to in the trick.

 

Of course you can think before playing a card. No one is saying that you should auto-play to a trick and then think about it!

 

The procedure that is being recommended is for when you have already decided what to play to the trick in progress. Besides being considerate and time-saving, this avoids MI, so it must be correct under law.

[MickyB]

Doesn't "I'm not thinking about this trick but the whole hand" impart some information to partner? I find the habit of putting the card face down quite irritating. If you want to think then you can

a. do so before playing but other than at trick one there will be potential UI problems arising from this

b. play your card in the normal way and at the end of the trick keep it open for as long as you want to think(if you do this very often you may run into time problems but less frequently than playing it face down).

 

fyp

[Jeremy69A]

fyp

 

I assume that you did not have the time/inclination to write out the words and that "fyp" is code for fixed your post but I meant what I said even if you disagree so fixing is unnecessary.

[MickyB]

I assume that you did not have the time/inclination to write out the words and that "fyp" is code for fixed your post but I meant what I said even if you disagree so fixing is unnecessary.

 

If I "play" my card face-down, think, reveal it and then partner/declarer get to think at the end of trick one, then more time is used than if we all think at the end of trick one. This means that we are more likely to run into time problems.

[bluejak]

Another point, that no one has raised so far, is that I have had opponents place a card face down, occasionally saying that they are not thinking about the current trick, and then change it after a while. Although I'm not sure what the actual rules about this are, it doesn't seem ideal for someone to imply or state that they are not thinking about the current trick and then demonstrate that they actually were.

Absolutely agree. I have thought about the hand when I want to all my playing career, and have never indicated I am not thinking about this trick then changed my card, which I consider unethical at best.

 

Of course you can think before playing a card. No one is saying that you should auto-play to a trick and then think about it!

 

The procedure that is being recommended is for when you have already decided what to play to the trick in progress. Besides being considerate and time-saving, this avoids MI, so it must be correct under law.

I doubt that it saves time, and it seems a very inconsiderate suggestion.

 

If I "play" my card face-down, think, reveal it and then partner/declarer get to think at the end of trick one, then more time is used than if we all think at the end of trick one. This means that we are more likely to run into time problems.

This a joke, right? Who on earth "runs into time problems" because on rare occasions players like myself stop to think in a way that certain other people do not wish to tolerate?

[gnasher]

I doubt that it saves time, and it seems a very inconsiderate suggestion.

What is inconsiderate about it?

 

This a joke, right? Who on earth "runs into time problems" because on rare occasions players like myself stop to think in a way that certain other people do not wish to tolerate?

Sometimes a table finishes late. Usually that is because one or more of the players has spent some time thinking, and the total time spent on thinking and playing has exceeded the time available for playing. If the time is used inefficiently, that is more likely to occur. Which part of that don't you believe?

[Vampyr]

What is inconsiderate about it?

 

I think that David has run out of arguments but is upholding the proud IBLF tradition of never changing your mind even if you have been shown quite clearly to be in the wrong.

[barmar]

What does annoy me is when someone holds their card out fully visible to me (and often also to partner) but not in such a way that it can be considered played while they um and ah about their decision.

Isn't a defender's card considered played when it could be seen by their partner?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

 

Law 45C1: Compulsory Play of Card: A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick. If the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E.

[bluejak]

I think that David has run out of arguments but is upholding the proud IBLF tradition of never changing your mind even if you have been shown quite clearly to be in the wrong.

I don't need new arguments: no-one has produced any reasonable argument against it. I am following the Laws and recommendations, and all that has happened is that some people object for no good reason. We need a bit of tolerance in this game,a nd I do not believe any argument that supports intolerance is a good argument.

 

Fortunately, players at the table seem more tolerant than players in forums. No-one objects to this approach, which has been recommended several times by authorities, except people on forums.

[Vampyr]

I don't need new arguments: no-one has produced any reasonable argument against it.

 

The argument that has been presented numerous times is that it ia, at the very least, more efficient if you let others think during "your" thinking time. So that if you know what card you are playing to the current trick, you can allow everyone at the table to analyse the hand in the light of this information. (Also you don't create MI by implying that what you are thinking about is what card to play to this trick.0

 

On the other hand, while you have used the word "inconsiderate" you have not explained why, nor suggested why your approach is better than the one that I and others have recommended.

[bluejak]

When you decide to think about the hand, I am sure neither you nor anyone else worries about the whole matter of everyone's thinking. That is not the way bridge is played. Your arguments are purely artificial, having no connection with the real world, where people think when they need to think.

 

It is inconsiderate to suggest that, unlike the rest of the world, myself and other people who follow the recommended procedure, should have to work on a different thinking arrangement from the majority.

[gnasher]

When you decide to think about the hand, I am sure neither you nor anyone else worries about the whole matter of everyone's thinking.

I'm not sure why you claim to have such insight into what other people think, but you are mistaken.

 

this approach, which has been recommended several times by authorities

myself and other people who follow the recommended procedure

Which authorities reccommend this, or have recommended it? (I'm not expecting an answer to this, since you haven't bothered to answer any of my other questions, but I thought I'd ask anyway.)

[Cyberyeti]

The Wikipedia explanation of straw men is quite good: "To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." When you said "There is no such rule as the one you have invented", that was a straw man, because I had never suggested that there was any rule.

That is the American definition, now catching on in the UK. It used to mean something related but quite different, essentially a straw man was a hypothetical situation that you used to test what might happen (from the jousting dummy IIRC) and had no prejudicial overtones.