Ethics question

[Jinksy]

Partner leads to trick one. Dummy goes down, and declarer plays a card with little pause, while you're still thinking about the hand.

 

What exactly is the appropriate behaviour if you have a singleton in the suit led? Does it depend on your normal tempo in that position?

 

I had someone accuse me (quite aggressively) of unethical behaviour for pausing. Someone else said afterwards that he was correct in his claim (if not tone) that I should have acted differently - specifically that I should have played a card and then retained it on the table (maybe face down?), while announcing that I was thinking about the hand as a whole.

 

But that seems really bizarre to me - under normal circumstances I would always pause to plan the defence in this position, including many circumstances where I basically have no relevant decision (eg on AK or some other such adjacent holding), so if 1 in 20 times I play the card then pause, I'm announcing to the world at large that I have a singleton. In other cases one might want to pause on a singleton to anticipate a later trick, or just take stock of the hand, and in those cases it seems like bridge ethics are inescapably faulty - you're damned if you do make an announcement and damned if you don't. But on trick 1, where it seems to be totally normal (and indeed textbook-recommended) for the third player to pause and take stock of the huge amount of info they've just received from seeing dummy, I don't see any advantage to the game from forcing the player to break natural tempo. The one (fairly obvious) exception I would expect is when a player who habitually plays quickly at trick 1 hesitates on a singleton.

 

Was I misinformed? Or is there a rationale that I'm missing?

[sfi]

Short answer is that you are correct. As a director I would inform the opponent that their behaviour was not acceptable, that third hand has a right to think about the hand when necessary, and that it is entirely normal to do so at trick one.

 

Longer answer is that law 73D1 tells us that:

 

[...] unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction. Inferences from such variations are authorized only to the opponents, who may act upon the information at their own risk.

 

So, the inference declarer took was at his own risk. He can get redress as described in law 73E2:

 

If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.

 

Note particularly the phrase "no demonstrable bridge reason for the action." It is a hard argument to make that third hand, upon first seeing dummy, has no reason at all to think about the entire hand.

[blackshoe]

I agree with sfi. Unfortunately, some directors do subscribe to the erroneous idea that third hand must not "hesitate with a singleton". :blink: :(

[The_Badger]

It might slow the game down a tad but I've always wondered why after a lead is made both declarer and the defence are not obliged to wait a period of several seconds before playing any card, especially at club or tournament level?

 

I personally find it very rude when declarer plays instantaneously from dummy on the 1st trick, and as a defender you are familiarising yourself with dummy and your possible defence.

 

It would cut out situations like this.

[wank]

i regularly play immediately from dummy. i play at a fast tempo. 3rd hand can take whatever time he feels appropriate, just as at any other moment in the hand.

 

anyway, to answer the OP, your actions were commendable and your opps were morons.

[Tramticket]

The EBU's white book:

 

 

8.73.2 Pauses at trick one

 

8.73.2.1 Pause by declarer before playing from dummy

 

A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility

of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended

practice.

 

8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand

 

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.

The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not

paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is

perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a

singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has

been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before

playing from dummy

[barmar]

Law 73A2 says:

But Regulating Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick.

I think most RAs have regulations similar to EBU -- they don't actually mandate a pause at trick 1, but they make it clear that such pauses are allowed without being deemed tempo breaks.

[Jinksy]

Thanks all

[ahydra]

The EBU's white book:

 

 

8.73.2 Pauses at trick one

 

8.73.2.1 Pause by declarer before playing from dummy

 

A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility

of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended

practice.

 

8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand

 

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.

The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not

paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is

perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a

singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has

been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before

playing from dummy

 

I must admit, I don't like that wording of 8.73.2.2. If declarer plays after say 20 sec, third hand should still be allowed to take 30 sec. (Figuring out a defence is very frequently much harder than figuring out a line of declarer play!) I think the first and last "if" clauses should be removed - just allow third hand to think about the deal at trick one for as long as he needs. There probably ought to be a similar provision for opening leader to think as well (I believe this is generally achieved by him refusing to turn over the first trick until he's done thinking).

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

In other cases one might want to pause on a singleton to anticipate a later trick, or just take stock of the hand, and in those cases it seems like bridge ethics are inescapably faulty - you're damned if you do...

 

No, you are OK in the middle of the hand. Play at your normal tempo, and then don't quit the trick until you are ready.

[WellSpyder]

No, you are OK in the middle of the hand. Play at your normal tempo, and then don't quit the trick until you are ready.

I seem to remember from a discussion quite a while back, though, that it may be legitimate for declarer to lead to the next trick once the previous trick has been completed, even if it has not been quitted.

[gnasher]

I seem to remember from a discussion quite a while back, though, that it may be legitimate for declarer to lead to the next trick once the previous trick has been completed, even if it has not been quitted.

 

Not in England. White Book 1.6.6: "It is acceptable practice to leave a card face up at the end of a trick while a player considers thelater play. No one should play to the next trick until the cards played to the current trick havebeen turned face down."

[barmar]

I must admit, I don't like that wording of 8.73.2.2. If declarer plays after say 20 sec, third hand should still be allowed to take 30 sec. (Figuring out a defence is very frequently much harder than figuring out a line of declarer play!) I think the first and last "if" clauses should be removed - just allow third hand to think about the deal at trick one for as long as he needs. There probably ought to be a similar provision for opening leader to think as well (I believe this is generally achieved by him refusing to turn over the first trick until he's done thinking).

 

ahydra

Do you thinking for 30 seconds after declarer has played from dummy, for a total of 50 seconds? Or do you just mean 30 seconds regardless of how long declarer takes to play from dummy.

 

If the latter, I think it's OK. It's clearly the intent of that section to state that declarer's tempo on trick 1 shouldn't control how quickly 3rd hand must play. If it takes you 30 seconds to think about the hand, it doesn't matter if declarer plays in 1 second or 20 seconds, you're allowed to think for 30 seconds.

[blackshoe]

Not sure why 30 should be a magic number.

[ahydra]

Do you thinking for 30 seconds after declarer has played from dummy, for a total of 50 seconds? Or do you just mean 30 seconds regardless of how long declarer takes to play from dummy.

 

If the latter, I think it's OK. It's clearly the intent of that section to state that declarer's tempo on trick 1 shouldn't control how quickly 3rd hand must play. If it takes you 30 seconds to think about the hand, it doesn't matter if declarer plays in 1 second or 20 seconds, you're allowed to think for 30 seconds.

 

I meant 30 seconds in total (sorry for the poor wording). But as blackshoe said, it's just an illustrative example - the numbers 20 and 30 are not meaningful outside of the fact that third hand needs longer than declarer to think about the hand, even if declarer takes long enough that he's not playing "quickly" to the first trick. If I was a TD asked to rule on this then I'd argue as you did that the intent of that section of the WB is clear.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

Not sure why 30 should be a magic number.

It's just an good example of a very long hesitation.