Break in Tempo

[iviehoff]

West's duck isn't very bright. I wonder what he is playing for?

The most charitable explanation is that, disgusted by his partner's hitch, he decides to give declarer the contract, which he does by failing to take the trick which takes the contract down by force, and by giving declarer a wire on how to make it. (Though as RMB points out, simply taking the K would be above criticism.)

 

The most uncharitable explanation is that he thinks declarer is daft enough to fall for the duck despite being given a wire as to what is happening, and daft enough to go for the overtrick even though he can now make it without any further finesse. If this is what he was thinking, he was in fact correct.

 

The middle way is that he isn't quite bright enough to think through any of this properly, and certainly not quickly enough, and SNAFU-ed it, but was then rescued by declarer's own limitations. I think this the most likely explanation.

[mink]

I can imagine situations where a defender with Kxx(xx)has a problem and needs to think in second hand, and therefore declarer has reason to believe the the defender holds the K if he thinks. But if the J is played from the hand and dummy holds AQT9, the possession of the K does not alter the expected latency of the defender, and if he needs a second more than usual, this is no valid clue for the declarer, unless the defender is a beginner.

 

Karl

[bluejak]

There is nothing in the Law book that I can find which indicates that one is not allowed to think whether to give count or not. 73F makes it clear that the requirement to adjust is that there is "no demonstrable bridge reason", and the time taken to give count correctly is clearly a bridge reason.

As quoted later, the White book does not agree. The decision of the L&EC enshrined in that was not based on a WBFLC minute, but was based on their understanding of the interpretation of this law not only in England but internationally.

 

Suppose I am playing. I give count religiously, except in certain specified situation. The knave is led from my right. I will always give count so partner knows whether to duck or not. I hesitate then play a card. The TD is called and asks me why I hesitated.

 

If I reply "I was wondering whether to show count or not." then I am lying.

[gnasher]

As quoted later, the White book does not agree. The decision of the L&EC enshrined in that was not based on a WBFLC minute, but was based on their understanding of the interpretation of this law not only in England but internationally.

 

Suppose I am playing. I give count religiously, except in certain specified situation. The knave is led from my right. I will always give count so partner knows whether to duck or not. I hesitate then play a card. The TD is called and asks me why I hesitated.

 

If I reply "I was wondering whether to show count or not." then I am lying.

But many other players don't give count religiously. If such a player did the same and gave the same answer, he would probably be telling the truth.

 

I accept, without much liking, the EBU's interpretation of 73D1 in this context, but I think we should leave honesty out of it.

[lamford]

10-12 seconds sounds like the normal time to play card in the second trick

There is no provision for extra time on the second trick; "out of tempo" then is "out of tempo". And if all players take 10-12 seconds over every card, then that would be about 8 minutes per board for the play of the hand only, which would not leave much time for the auction, as 16 minutes for two boards is a fairly common time limit. I would say 2-3 seconds was normal tempo for most people.

[blackshoe]

"Out of tempo" is always "out of tempo", but proper "tempo" (by definition "the speed with which an action is taken") depends on the circumstances and the player's habit.

 

The ACBL recommends 15 minutes for two board rounds. Around here, we typically get 14, and sometimes 13. It usually depends on how much hurry the director is in to get out of there, and how much she thinks she can get away with.

 

All that said, I agree that 2-3 seconds is normal tempo for most people, but would add that we don't, or at least should not, base a judgement of what is "out of tempo" for a particular player on what is "normal for most people". Rather we should base it on what is normal for that player — if, of course, we can determine what that is.

[Phil]

The OP said "an extra second or two". That implies that this was in addition to the normal time it takes to play.

 

And what's the 'normal' time to play to this trick? For me, its 2 - 2.5 seconds, since its early in the play and I'm still processing things unrelated to the trick. I'm also not necessarily expecting the ♥J to come out, so it takes a moment to think, "oh, ♥J, better not cover with AQT9 (vs AQT8)". I realize this contradicts my "nothing to think about" statement, but its still de minimus.

 

Over the AQT9, I need to figure out the outstanding spots, because there can be technical reasons to duck if partner has a doubleton. 3-4 seconds is my guess, but I can do some of this before partner plays.

 

For another player this might take 4-8 seconds, but for a junior that processes quicker than I do, it might be less than a second.

 

So normal tempo seems very dependent on the person, as well as the situation. Is declarer really that tuned in to the electrochemistry of a defender's nervous system to detect a 1 - 1.5 second variation?

[olegru]

As soon as he sees the 7-card suit in dummy he should start thinking about the distribution.

Of cause he should. And probably he did. But Ace of ♦ gave a lot more information to reconsider situation.

 

There is no provision for extra time on the second trick; "out of tempo" then is "out of tempo". And if all players take 10-12 seconds over every card, then that would be about 8 minutes per board for the play of the hand only, which would not leave much time for the auction, as 16 minutes for two boards is a fairly common time limit. I would say 2-3 seconds was normal tempo for most people.

And if all players take 2-3 seconds over every card and exery call then that would be about 2.5 minutes per board. Simple math gives us that average time to make every decision in normal 15 minutes for two boards time limit is 7.5 seconds per play.

 

And (for my experience) people usually dont think every card. There are 2-4 situatins to pause:

- After seeing dummy to imagine distribution and make plans;

- After unexpected card played to review possible distribution;

- One or two critical moments to choose between plans.

 

I would expect standard timing for a play of hands to be something like:

 

first trick - 10 plus minus 3 seconds

second trick- 10 plus minus 3 seconds

3rd........ - 5 .............second

4th........ - 3 .............second

5th........ - 2 .............second

6.......... - 10 ............second

7.......... - 3 .............second

8.......... - 2 .............second

9.......... - 3 .............second

10......... - 1 .............second

11......... - 1 .............second

12......... - 1 .............second

13......... - 0 .............second

 

Complain about 1 or 2 extra seconds taking during the first 3 tricks caused declarer to misplaced high cards sounds absolutely ridiculous for me. The only exception is hesitation with singleton, but it is not the case here.

 

It could be much trickier with complain about hesitation during the "second critical moment" (trick 6 in my example)that may alarm hesitators partner but it is different discussion.

[blackshoe]

So normal tempo seems very dependent on the person, as well as the situation. Is declarer really that tuned in to the electrochemistry of a defender's nervous system to detect a 1 - 1.5 second variation?

Yep, it is. Nope, he's not.

[mycroft]

"determining the card to play to show count" is actually a bridge reason, even though it shouldn't take any time for players of any experience.

 

"deciding whether to falsecard with xx or xxx" in tempo-sensitive situations, has been deemed to be "not a bridge reason" by many NBOs.

[blackshoe]

"deciding whether to falsecard with xx or xxx" in tempo-sensitive situations, has been deemed to be "not a bridge reason" by many NBOs.

"How many legs has a sheep?"

"Four."

"And if I call its tail a leg, how many legs has it?"

"Five."

"No, four, for calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

[campboy]

The problem is that there is very little practical difference between "trying to deceive declarer and playing slowly" (thinking about falsecarding) and "trying to deceive declarer by playing slowly" (undisputably illegal).

[axman]

"determining the card to play to show count" is actually a bridge reason, even though it shouldn't take any time for players of any experience.

 

"deciding whether to falsecard with xx or xxx" in tempo-sensitive situations, has been deemed to be "not a bridge reason" by many NBOs.

 

Linguistically I may well consider such a reason to be "a bridge reason"; however, with regard to avoiding the consequences of improper deception it would "not be a valid bridge reason". How to better put it? When 'the deciding whether to falsecard' is done within the unvarying normal tempo [should the player have such a history**] there would be no such evidence of improper deception from unsteady tempo, would there?

 

** on the whole players are trained to not normally have unvarying tempo- as by admonitions such as bridge is a thinking game and I can think when I want; so, for a player to normally have unvarying tempo is an abnormality in spite of the pressure from his surroundings to have unsteady tempo

[blackshoe]

I just starting practicing Tai Chi Chuan. I am told that in order to get the most benefit from this, I need to learn to breathe properly. I am also told that in the beginning, breathing properly should be ignored while I am learning the form and the postures (movements) that make up the form (similar to what the Japanese martial arts call "kata"). Once I learn the form to the point that it is "second nature" and I don't have to think about it, then I can worry about proper breathing. Once I have breathing down to that "second nature" stage, I can go on to more advanced practice. It takes years, I'm told, to get to that point.

 

It's the same with bridge. A beginner has enough to think about in the bidding and play without worrying about his tempo, facial expressions, and so on. It will take some time, probably at least a year, perhaps longer, before he's ready to move on from "what do the bids mean?" to "I need to keep a poker face", and "I need to maintain steady tempo". A lot of people seem to think bridge players come "out of the box" with the ability to do it all correctly. They don't — it takes years of practice. The problem is that the only "guidance" they get is when somebody calls the director, and they get "punished" with an adverse ruling. Perhaps we need a curriculum of "tempo training" for intermediate players.

[pran]

I just starting practicing Tai Chi Chuan. I am told that in order to get the most benefit from this, I need to learn to breathe properly. I am also told that in the beginning, breathing properly should be ignored while I am learning the form and the postures (movements) that make up the form (similar to what the Japanese martial arts call "kata"). Once I learn the form to the point that it is "second nature" and I don't have to think about it, then I can worry about proper breathing. Once I have breathing down to that "second nature" stage, I can go on to more advanced practice. It takes years, I'm told, to get to that point.

 

It's the same with bridge. A beginner has enough to think about in the bidding and play without worrying about his tempo, facial expressions, and so on. It will take some time, probably at least a year, perhaps longer, before he's ready to move on from "what do the bids mean?" to "I need to keep a poker face", and "I need to maintain steady tempo". A lot of people seem to think bridge players come "out of the box" with the ability to do it all correctly. They don't it takes years of practice. The problem is that the only "guidance" they get is when somebody calls the director, and they get "punished" with an adverse ruling. Perhaps we need a curriculum of "tempo training" for intermediate players.

Some of us already "vary our ruling and appearence at the table" depending on the (class of) players involved and I see no problem with it.

 

I remember (must have been at least 10 years ago) I was called to a table in what one would probably call a "C-flight" event. It was a judgment case involving one of the best Norwegian TDs at the time and I eventually came back to the table announcing my verdict which went against her. I added: "This is a situation where I rule differently in A-flight and C-flight".

 

My (female) fellow burst out in laughter and stated she had absolutely no problem with that.

[blackshoe]

Some of us already "vary our ruling and appearence at the table" depending on the (class of) players involved and I see no problem with it.

 

I remember (must have been at least 10 years ago) I was called to a table in what one would probably call a "C-flight" event. It was a judgment case involving one of the best Norwegian TDs at the time and I eventually came back to the table announcing my verdict which went against her. I added: "This is a situation where I rule differently in A-flight and C-flight".

 

My (female) fellow burst out in laughter and stated she had absolutely no problem with that.

Good for her. But my point was not about what TDs should do, but rather how we get beginners from stage 1 (totally clueless) to stage 2 or 3 (understanding the need for consistent tempo and minimization of 'tells' and at least trying to 'do it right'). The current "learn from experience" meme doesn't seem to be working all that well.

[pran]

Good for her. But my point was not about what TDs should do, but rather how we get beginners from stage 1 (totally clueless) to stage 2 or 3 (understanding the need for consistent tempo and minimization of 'tells' and at least trying to 'do it right'). The current "learn from experience" meme doesn't seem to be working all that well.

Oh, that is part of my "varying my ruling and appearence at the table" depending on the (class of) players involved.

 

I tell beginners in an apparently (according to feedbacks) very appreciated manner the ruling they shall expect (and why) in a higher level event.

[blackshoe]

Ah. Well, if it works, I suppose you should keep doing it. B-)

[jillybean]

This could work in NA too, if people called the director and the director was willing & able to explain the laws.

[blackshoe]

And if the players were willing to listen. Sometimes they're too busy complaining to do that, though.

[jillybean]

Ah, well. I tried..shrug :)

[blackshoe]

I'm not saying it's a waste of time. I've been known to do it myself as a director, and sometimes, as in Sven's experience, they were happy to learn, but sometimes, like I said, they didn't want to hear it. So have at it. B-)

[Vampyr]

I tell beginners in an apparently (according to feedbacks) very appreciated manner the ruling they shall expect (and why) in a higher level event.

 

I believe blackshoe was suggesting that players learn it in some other way apart from director calls (which is not a very consistent method!)

[blackshoe]

I believe blackshoe was suggesting that players learn it in some other way apart from director calls (which is not a very consistent method!)

Yep.

[barmar]

I believe blackshoe was suggesting that players learn it in some other way apart from director calls (which is not a very consistent method!)

This is a difficult issue. We're often advised that players should not give unsolicited lessons at the bridge table -- if you think the opponents need to be instructed in proper procedure, tell the director.

 

What's often suggested is talking to the director between rounds or after the game, asking him to talk to the player in question. However, I'm not so sure how well that would work for something like this. The player is not likely to even remember what they did or what they were thinking about unless it was in one of the last rounds of the game.