The Eyesight Coup

[barmar]

Of course. To induce a defensive error from an opponent who mistakenly plays at the same speed.

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes a "bridge reason". Mannerisms and tempo are not part of the game.

[nige1]

74D7 prevents you varying your tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. None of the definitions I have found of "disconcerting" in the dictionary includes "inducing a mistake".

disconcert verb (transitive)

1. To upset the composure of.
2. To bring into confusion.
3. To frustrate, make go wrong.

"Make go wrong" is similar to "Induce a mistake". Even if you reject that definition, however, would you accept that a disconcerted person is more likely to err?

[barmar]

"Make go wrong" is similar to "Inducing a mistake". Even if you reject that definition, however, would you accept that a disconcerted person tends to be error-prone?

That may be true, but the pertinent question is whether an error-prone person is disconcerted.

[lamford]

"Make go wrong" is similar to "Inducing a mistake". Even if you reject that definition, however, would you accept that a disconcerted person tends to be error-prone?

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

[nige1]

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

I think that variations in tempo can disconcert an opponent. Most players comply with the law by trying to play in tempo (also to avoid giving UI to partner). They use partner's and opponents' thinking time, as well as their own. Of course, If your RHO plays unexpectedly quickly, then he gives you less time to think than normal, and makes a mistake by you more likely.

[mycroft]

Certainly playing slower-than-lightning until you make the lightning key play, hoping either for a lightning mistake or a pause you can use to determine holdings, seems improper.

 

Calling the TD over the "pause" when it turns out that "he doesn't have his hitch" is definitely improper.

 

Does it happen? Yes. Do those who do it argue that "he should have been prepared for this play, so I'm in my rights"? Of course. Do I want one as my partner? I'm sure you have the answer to that question as well.

[Vampyr]

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

 

Paul, do you not remember a teammate who was induced to make all kinds of mistakes when declarer played quickly?

[mycroft]

Thanks for the reminder. I know that at least once a year I give the advice to someone who is disturbed at playing with particular people (whether they just play fast, or act really silly at the table and distract, or give off the "I know what's going on, surely either you can claim, or you're an idiot" vibe, or whatever) "do not fall into their trap. Whether they're doing it to intice you into playing their game (which they play much better than you) or are just that kind of person, changing your game to meet them is easy to do, and fatal. Take your usual time, and play your normal game."

[lamford]

Paul, do you not remember a teammate who was induced to make all kinds of mistakes when declarer played quickly?

Not specifically. Many teammates in the past have stated that they played too quickly because declarer did, but that is their fault.

[Vampyr]

Not specifically. Many teammates in the past have stated that they played too quickly because declarer did, but that is their fault.

 

You are being too hard on these players.

[aguahombre]

Many teammates in the past have stated that they played too quickly because declarer did, but that is their fault.

Indeed, it is their fault; and they would do well to merely state that they played too quickly, and not attribute their mistakes to others.

[Vampyr]

Indeed, it is their fault; and they would do well to merely state that they played too quickly, and not attribute their mistakes to others.

 

True, but players who lack poise and confidence are easily influenced by fast play. Many must make a conscious effort on each hand.

[wank]

i agree with lamford - you can't make anyone play quickly by doing so yourself.

 

as for this colour coup business, if you have some variety of disability and partake in a game/sport with those who are not, you should expect to be handicapped and perforce on occasion lose. what next? bonus matchpoints if you bring along an IQ test certificate to show you're not as clever as FrancisHinden or DBurn?

[Trinidad]

i agree with lamford - you can't make anyone play quickly by doing so yourself.

 

as for this colour coup business, if you have some variety of disability and partake in a game/sport with those who are not, you should expect to be handicapped and perforce on occasion lose. what next? bonus matchpoints if you bring along an IQ test certificate to show you're not as clever as FrancisHinden or DBurn?

That depends on the purpose of the game.

 

If the purpose of the game is to determine who is the best player (as in serious bridge competitions) then I fully agree with you.

If the purpose of the game is to have a fun time together and winning is not important then taking advantage of someone's handicap is a poor choice.

 

Rik

[lamford]

That depends on the purpose of the game.

 

If the purpose of the game is to determine who is the best player (as in serious bridge competitions) then I fully agree with you.

If the purpose of the game is to have a fun time together and winning is not important then taking advantage of someone's handicap is a poor choice.

 

Rik

For this forum, we know the purpose of the game from Law 72A:

"The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws."

 

So, if you have four for dinner and bridge, your second purpose is the one. In a competitive event, the first. But one man's ethical standards might be another man's Alcatraz Coup.

[barmar]

True, but players who lack poise and confidence are easily influenced by fast play. Many must make a conscious effort on each hand.

So you're saying that they have to think to avoid blunders in bridge?

[Vampyr]

So you're saying that they have to think to avoid blunders in bridge?

 

No.

[blackshoe]

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

That's just hogwash.

[barmar]

One law says you can't play vary your tempo to disconcert an opponent. Another law says that you can't mislead an opponent by varying tempo without a demonstrable bridge reason. And finally there's a law that says you should try to maintain a steady tempo.

 

The question this thread raises is where does "playing quickly for the purpose of surprising or confusing an opponent" fit into this? Lamford appears to suggest that since confusing isn't the same as disconcerting, it's allowed -- it's a "demonstrable bridge reason".

 

On the other hand, lamford also brings up the issue of a player forgetting what has happened when an opponent goes into the tank. If the tanker had a valid bridge reason, we don't have any sympathy for the forgetter, right? Why should the reason for the tank affect whether an opponent is expected to remember what happened before?

[barmar]

Also, 73F just says that a player is protected against drawing a "false inference" from an action by an opponent with no demonstrable bridge reason. Forgetting the earlier play is not a false inference, it's just a mental lapse.

 

But there's still the law that says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." Playing extra quickly for the "duck season" reason, or going into the tank for a Sominex Coup, seems to violate this. But the only legal rectification for these violations would be a PP for the perpetrator, not a score adjustment.

 

How about this? 73D2 says you can't try to mislead an opponent by haste or hesitancy of a play. Could leading a club really quickly while you seem to be in the midst of drawing spades count as "misleading" the opponent?

[lamford]

Also, 73F just says that a player is protected against drawing a "false inference" from an action by an opponent with no demonstrable bridge reason. Forgetting the earlier play is not a false inference, it's just a mental lapse.

 

But there's still the law that says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." Playing extra quickly for the "duck season" reason, or going into the tank for a Sominex Coup, seems to violate this. But the only legal rectification for these violations would be a PP for the perpetrator, not a score adjustment.

 

How about this? 73D2 says you can't try to mislead an opponent by haste or hesitancy of a play. Could leading a club really quickly while you seem to be in the midst of drawing spades count as "misleading" the opponent?

There are plenty of hands that are played very quickly, and I have never seen a ruling for unduly fast play, and there is none in the EBU appeal booklets. That does not mean there cannot be, but the declarer did not "vary his tempo" when leading the queen of clubs. He had also led the ace of spades and king of spades in quick succession. The law does not say "vary his tempo in comparison with other hands he has played", and this would indeed be nonsense, or, should I say, hogwash. Some hands will offer a choice of lines. This one did not, as the colour coup against the partially-sighted opponent was the only plausible line; even ♦QJ tight was no good because of the blockage, as SB immediately realised. In comparison, therefore, with hands where there is nothing to the play, which he also played quickly, SB did not vary his tempo.

[aguahombre]

On the other hand, lamford also brings up the issue of a player forgetting what has happened when an opponent goes into the tank.

My English comprehension is not up to standard, so I spend a lot of time futilely searching for the other hand.

[blackshoe]

My English comprehension is not up to standard, so I spend a lot of time futilely searching for the other hand.

Heh. Wait until you meet a Motie: "On the gripping hand…"

[WellSpyder]

So you're saying that they have to think to avoid blunders in bridge?

This doesn't seem to work for me - I still make blunders even when I think.....

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I am mistaken but I seem to recall one of Meckwell writing something a while back about the importance of playing quickly in certain situations to try and get a tell at the critical point. Noone seems to take any issue with that though. I think that if you penalise one tactic you need to penalise the other too. Either it is ok to play more quickly than usual to gain an advantage or not. It should not matter whether it is SB or Meckstroth calling the cards.