[axman]

 pran, on 2019-December-14, 11:54, said:

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]

 lamford, on 2019-December-17, 09:11, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-December-17, 12:26, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-December-17, 12:26, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-December-17, 12:26, said:

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]

 Vampyr, on 2019-December-21, 00:04, said:

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]

 pescetom, on 2019-December-21, 16:10, said:

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]

 KingCovert, on 2019-December-13, 10:59, said:

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]

 lamford, on 2019-December-22, 16:30, said:

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]

 masterho, on 2020-January-21, 05:34, said:

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.

[nige1]

 KingCovert, on 2019-December-13, 10:59, said:

While I must admit, I'm not particularly familiar with any of the laws surrounding this issue. As a player, I do think it's somewhat ridiculous to consider it unethical to think when making a decision. Sometimes players considering whether they should be giving count, or preference.. etc.. Rather, it's clear to me, that 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. If this player had absolutely no conceivable decision, I understand, but it's trick 2, and decisions at trick 2 can have significant relevance to defeating a contract. While I agree that this decision is straight forward, and may well mark the 10 to their partner, this is identical to when a defender is thinking with the King of a suit on the table, does anyone doubt whether they have the Ace? Are they now obligated to play it?

 masterho, on 2020-January-21, 05:34, said:

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

It's frightening that here and on BridgeWinners, there are interminable threads where experts condemn a director-call as "unethical, "shameful" or worse.

IMO, the rules of bridge need radical simplification and clarification. They are too sophisticated and subjective.

Nevertheless, however bad we deem the rules to be, we players should comply with them. Also, if we feel that a putative irregularity might have damaged us,. then we should be free to call the director without fear of abuse.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2020-January-21, 10:01, said:

Who are these people? Tim was a colleague of mine when I was moderating Roundtables on Genie about thirty years ago.

GEnie -- blast from the past!

I don't really remember which groups I was in -- maybe TV and personal finance.

[pilowsky]

As much as I like you guys, you really need to know that this is all complete nonsense.
If ever there was a need for Bridge clocks so that every player could play their cards in their own time without fear of idiotic arguments like this one erupting, it's an idiotic argument like this one.
None of you is psychic, none of you is a mind-reader. The entire idea that it is possible to tell where any particular card is from a 4, 5 or 6-second pause is completely silly.
I know that it has become part of Bridge lore (and apparently now law) that this is possible but it isn't. James Randi would have a great time with you lot.

Also, peoples processing speed varies dramatically for all sorts of reasons. Some people may even have brief episodes of petit mal epilepsy that they are completely unaware of (incidence up to 4.6/100,000 apparently) or they could have sleep apnoea.
Or if they are British they could just have eaten a bad kipper.

Get over yourselves.

[nige1]

 pilowsky, on 2020-October-28, 01:58, said:

As much as I like you guys, you really need to know that this is all complete nonsense. If ever there was a need for Bridge clocks so that every player could play their cards in their own time without fear of idiotic arguments like this one erupting, it's an idiotic argument like this one. None of you is psychic, none of you is a mind-reader. The entire idea that it is possible to tell where any particular card is from a 4, 5 or 6-second pause is completely silly. I know that it has become part of Bridge lore (and apparently now law) that this is possible but it isn't. James Randi would have a great time with you lot. Also, peoples processing speed varies dramatically for all sorts of reasons. Some people may even have brief episodes of petit mal epilepsy that they are completely unaware of (incidence up to 4.6/100,000 apparently) or they could have sleep apnoea. Or if they are British they could just have eaten a bad kipper. Get over yourselves.

I agree with Pilowski that the rules of Bridge over-rely on subjective judgment, especially mind-reading. And I also agree that a timed-game would reduce controversial rulings.

In this particular case however, under current rules, Sven Pran and Paul Lamford convince me. IMO, the director should rule 100% in favour of declarer. The laws specify that defenders should take special care with tempo when it's likely to affect opponent's actions. East could have known that his hesitation would give declarer a false impression.

[Zelandakh]

This thread has an interesting twist in these covid days as now the OLer cannot delay quitting trick 1 for their thinking time. I would hope that this would have an influence on the way that a ruling might be judged.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2019-December-18, 10:47, said:

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.

This is my problem with things like odd/even signals, playing a slow card suggests you didn't have the card you needed to give the correct signal, so thinking about it tells partner to ignore it.

[pilowsky]

If you read Waldrop's Dream Machine about the development of the personal computer, you will come across a moment when Steve Jobs (I think) asks the designers to add noise to the computer so that people will believe that it is actually doing something.
When replaying hands on the teaching table you will find that GIB randomly, but reproducibly, adds specific amounts of time at certain points for no good reason. The amount of time is always the same. There is no reason for it. GIB doesn't need to pause or think.
It seems that the programmers have added pauses here and there to simulate thinking in order to create verisimilitude.
Why else?
Should I call the Director when in a timed robot tournament GIB wastes my time unnecessarily?
Obviously not, but I don't infer that East has the King of Diamonds either. I also don't do it just because Barry burps or Nigel scratches himself.
Perhaps if Paul knowingly rubbed his nose and did a Robert Redford imitation I'd get worried.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-03, 04:58, said:

This is my problem with things like odd/even signals, playing a slow card suggests you didn't have the card you needed to give the correct signal, so thinking about it tells partner to ignore it.

As opposed to high/low signals when a fast card is attitude/count and a slow card is suit preference.

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-November-03, 05:30, said:

As opposed to high/low signals when a fast card is attitude/count and a slow card is suit preference.

Don't have this problem playing pretty much count throughout, but yes, any signal with multiple purposes (we had a real issue with a pair playing prism signals and tempo) is abusable in this way.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-November-03, 06:20, said:

Don't have this problem playing pretty much count throughout, but yes, any signal with multiple purposes (we had a real issue with a pair playing prism signals and tempo) is abusable in this way.

So if you have 852, you play count on the first round and then count again on the second round just in case partner missed the first signal?