What does this hesitation suggest?

[blackshoe]

WB 8.73.1 refers to the EBU White Book.

[pran]

It seems dubious that pausing to consider whether and how to signal can not be considered ‘a demonstrable bridge reason’, even if one accepts the logic that failing to maintain tempo may work to the the benefit of the player in that his opponent has a right to base his choice of play on such variation.

I believe we generally rule that pausing to consider whether or not a player shall false-signal is not itself acceptable as a demonstrable bridge reason.

The player should have foreseen this situation in advance and made up his mind so that no noticeable hesitation is needed at the time of the play.

 

Hesitation is only acceptable when following play to a clearly unexpected lead or play.

[TylerE]

I believe we generally rule that pausing to consider whether or not a player shall false-signal is not itself acceptable as a demonstrable bridge reason.

The player should have foreseen this situation in advance and made up his mind so that no noticeable hesitation is needed at the time of the play.

 

Hesitation is only acceptable when following play to a clearly unexpected lead or play.

 

Given that (alleged) hesitator was the opening leader, and this is his first opportunity to have a think after seeing dummy, when SHOULD he consider when to make some future false card if not now?

[lamford]

Given that (alleged) hesitator was the opening leader, and this is his first opportunity to have a think after seeing dummy, when SHOULD he consider when to make some future false card if not now?

Before quitting trick one.

[pran]

Given that (alleged) hesitator was the opening leader, and this is his first opportunity to have a think after seeing dummy, when SHOULD he consider when to make some future false card if not now?

So long as the lead to trick 2 is made less than 10 seconds after dummy's hand is faced we do not consider any hesitation unjustified.

 

Primarily we recommend declarer to take his pause (up to 10 seconds) immediately after dummy faces his cards. If he plays sooner to trick 1 then the remaining time is at the disposal for RHO.

[blackshoe]

Ten seconds is not a whole lot of time to plan the play or defense of a hand.

[lamford]

Ten seconds is not a whole lot of time to plan the play or defense of a hand.

In practice, for example watching the Reisinger, there are many hands where declarer plays almost immediately at trick one, as does the defender. 73D1 states:

 

1. It is desirable, though not always required, fo players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, 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.

 

In a sense this contradicts 73E2, quoted by VixTD:

2. 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 that it does not say "may award an adjusted score", it says "shall". So, declarer does act on the information at their own risk, but you have to have a bridge reason for the BIT. If you have, then like ChCh with ATx, you are in the clear. East in the original hand with Txxx is not in the clear. If he wanted to think at trick two he should do it before quitting trick one.

[blackshoe]

I suspect that it takes people who play in the Reisinger a lot less time to figure out how to play or defend a hand that it does me, or any number of other players not at that level of expertise. Are we going to set the time allowed to be allocated to thinking about the play or defense of a hand to how long Speedy Gonzalez takes, or are we going to allow Joe Average a reasonable amount of time?

[lamford]

I suspect that it takes people who play in the Reisinger a lot less time to figure out how to play or defend a hand that it does me, or any number of other players not at that level of expertise. Are we going to set the time allowed to be allocated to thinking about the play or defense of a hand to how long Speedy Gonzalez takes, or are we going to allow Joe Average a reasonable amount of time?

Both defenders can take as long as they like at trick one, and do not need to quit that trick until they have thought about the whole hand. And if the defender has a demonstrable bridge reason to think on any future trick then they are allowed to do so as well. But case law indicates that thinking which small card to play is not a demonstrable bridge reason.

[Cascade]

Both defenders can take as long as they like at trick one, and do not need to quit that trick until they have thought about the whole hand. And if the defender has a demonstrable bridge reason to think on any future trick then they are allowed to do so as well. But case law indicates that thinking which small card to play is not a demonstrable bridge reason.

 

There is no law that allows a player not to quit a trick until they have thought about the whole hand (for as long as they like).

[blackshoe]

There is no law that allows a player not to quit a trick until they have thought about the whole hand (for as long as they like).

There's no law that prohibits him either.

[VixTD]

There is no law that allows a player not to quit a trick until they have thought about the whole hand (for as long as they like).

In England and Wales we have:

 

[WB1.6.6] It is acceptable practice to leave a card face up at the end of a trick while a player considers the later play. No one should play to the next trick until the cards played to the current trick have been turned face down.

[lamford]

There's no law that prohibits him either.

The relevant law about the quitted trick is:

65A. Completed Trick

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

It does not set a time limit for each player to turn his own card face down, but the trick is not completed until all four players have, so there is a permitted thinking time, borne out by practice. It probably should say, "each player, when he chooses to do so, turns his own card face down ..."

 

Notwithstanding the above, each player is still entitled to think at trick two, but only for a demonstrable bridge reason.

[blackshoe]

Bridge is a thinking game. If we're not entitled to think, what does that do to the game?

[barmar]

Bridge is a thinking game. If we're not entitled to think, what does that do to the game?

I need to think about that. Oops, they're calling the round....

[axman]

I believe we generally rule that pausing to consider whether or not a player shall false-signal is not itself acceptable as a demonstrable bridge reason.

The player should have foreseen this situation in advance and made up his mind so that no noticeable hesitation is needed at the time of the play.

 

Hesitation is only acceptable when following play to a clearly unexpected lead or play.

It occurs to me that while it is improper to contemplate which card would have a desired deceptive effect, that contemplating which card gives the correct signal is proper when there is such a distinction.

[axman]

The relevant law about the quitted trick is:

65A. Completed Trick

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

 

It does not set a time limit for each player to turn his own card face down, but the trick is not completed until all four players have, so there is a permitted thinking time, borne out by practice. It probably should say, "each player, when he chooses to do so, turns his own card face down ..."

 

Notwithstanding the above, each player is still entitled to think at trick two, but only for a demonstrable bridge reason.

TFLB does define 'trick' but not 'complete trick'. Nor does it define a trick as complete upon quitting the cards. But it does define when cards played to a trick are to be quitted and it does so in such a way that if a player wants to contemplate so as to avoid pausing after the start of a future trick... he needs to grasp the card and take a long time quitting it.

[lamford]

It occurs to me that while it is improper to contemplate which card would have a desired deceptive effect, that contemplating which card gives the correct signal is proper when there is such a distinction.

a) Declarer, in a slam, with a side-suit singleton opposite KJx, leads at trick two towards the KJ. The person with Q854 thinks for a while and plays the eight, normal count, a bridge reason, so that his partner will know whether another one is cashing if declarer guesses wrong ….

 

b) Declarer, in a slam, with a side-suit singleton opposite KJx, leads at trick two towards the KJ. The person with Q854 thinks for a while and plays the eight, normal count, a bridge reason, as that increases the chances of declarer guessing wrong ...

[barmar]

It occurs to me that while it is improper to contemplate which card would have a desired deceptive effect, that contemplating which card gives the correct signal is proper when there is such a distinction.

How hard is it to know which card gives the correct signal? If you play standard count, a high card shows even; if you play upside-down, a low card.

 

Are you talking about contemplating whether this is a count, attitude, or suit preference situation? Again, this is something players are supposed to anticipate so that they don't hesitate.

 

Clearly, being able to plan ahead like this requires experience, but I don't think that's a serious problem. Novice players have extremely random tempo, often hesitating when there's nothing much to think about, so you can't really infer much from it.

[Vampyr]

It occurs to me that while it is improper to contemplate which card would have a desired deceptive effect, that contemplating which card gives the correct signal is proper when there is such a distinction.

 

Not really; in a tempo-sensitive situation you have to be super careful. At least in the EBU, deciding which of several small cards to contribute to a trick is not considered a bridge reason. This is wise, as when declarer is damaged there is no need to assess how good or otherwise the “bridge reason” is.

[pescetom]

At least in the EBU, deciding which of several small cards to contribute to a trick is not considered a bridge reason. This is wise, as when declarer is damaged there is no need to assess how good or otherwise the “bridge reason” is.

 

This is clearly wise in terms of obtaining rapid and consistent TD decisions. As such it would be incoherent of me to oppose it, but I would prefer such a radical position to be written in Law rather than edicted by an RA.

[lamford]

This is clearly wise in terms of obtaining rapid and consistent TD decisions. As such it would be incoherent of me to oppose it, but I would prefer such a radical position to be written in Law rather than edicted by an RA.

It is. 72D1 states: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. So, with Txxx, under J9 doubleton, you need to be particularly careful. With ATx, ChCh needs to be particularly careful that his subtle break in tempo is just enough to be noticed, but not enough to be proven.

[masterho]

the most unethical player at the table is the one who chooses to read into a break in tempo, and changes their course of action intending to run to the director if they've guessed wrong. It's shameful.

 

Exactly what I think. I always only blame myself for guessing wrong.

[Vampyr]

It is. 72D1 states: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. So, with Txxx, under J9 doubleton, you need to be particularly careful. With ATx, ChCh needs to be particularly careful that his subtle break in tempo is just enough to be noticed, but not enough to be proven.

 

Paul, you may have noticed that there are one or two people contributing to this thread that do not understand the issue at hand. They may think that your last sentence represents a legal action.

[blackshoe]

Exactly what I think. I always only blame myself for guessing wrong.

I blame Tim. Or Polerand. Of course, everything is their fault.

 

Who are these people? Tim was a colleague of mine when I was moderating Roundtables on Genie about thirty years ago. Polerand was a player in an MMO I played (and still play). I haven't seen either of them in at least twenty years. B-)