[cherdano]

mikeh, on Jan 11 2007, 11:29 PM, said:

Many years ago, probably before Justin was born, I held something like Qxx in the ♥ suit and dummy held something like K109xx. Early on, it was obvious that eventually declarer, a solid player, would probably be leading towards dummy. I was not as experienced then as I am now but I could count declarer for at most 2 cards in the suit, and I knew that I would be playing low no matter what card declarer led.

However, declarer tanked and I drifted off. Then he played the ♥ J from his hand, and I broke tempo. I was not considering covering, that decision had been made several tricks earlier.. I had just lost focus. So I reflexively said what I always said in such circumstance: 'sorry, no problem'

Declarer looked at me and then called for the K, losing to the A... he had Jx and got a poor result. He never said a word, but I knew that he had marked me mentally as a coffee-houser or worse, and I was incredibly embarrassed.

I don't get your story.
- Wasn't your comment completely honest? Wouldn't you have much more of a problem with Axx? (Wouldn't it be much more coffee-housing saying "no problem" with Axx? Or breaking tempo with Qxx and saying nothing?)
- Anyway, shouldn't any decent declarer have noticed that you just had lost focus? Actually, what does breaking tempo after a long tank mean? (I have heard the recommendation to always stop for a second after a long tank by declarer, just in order not to do s.th. silly while still asleep...)

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jan 11 2007, 01:14 PM, said:

No you can't hesitate with the intent to deceive.

A lot of the bridge laws have chosen to incorporate intent. Some things are illegal with malicious intent, but legal otherwise. This gives the cheaters an advantage because they can get away with a lot of stuff. But their peers always know, and their reputation is always smeered. I believe that more than anything keeps experts who may otherwise have cheated from cheating.

FWIW if I zone out and don't play in tempo, I will always say "sorry np." This is not required but I believe it is the right thing to do.

For those who say that hesitations online are meaningless, I think you're extremely wrong. You can very often read someones tempo online. If they've played the same tempo all the time and then alter it in a situation where they might need to think then it's safe to assume they were thinking. If they've consistently had random tempo variation (in situations where you cannot be deceived, just literally random) maybe theyre playing poker or something in the background and you know not to read into their tempo. If they consistently hesitate only in situations where you can be deceived then they're dishonest, but you can still use it to your advantage, just take the opposite inference. I love playing against people who fake hitch because they give me just as much info as those who hesitate for real.

One of my big pet peeves, and I've fallen victim to this three times lately is the tank pass with no extras to buy the contract.

Example:

1♣ - (1♠) - pass (2♣)
pass - (2♠) - pass (......................................pass)

A good 10-15 seconds (which is an eternity at the bridge table by the way) before the Pass.

Last time I saw this, dummy came down with: Qxx, KQxxx, Kxx, xx. WTF does he have to think about it, other than, "If I pass slow enough, I'll look like I have a 15 count and Opener won't want to balance in a fit auction"

[Cascade]

badderzboy, on Jan 11 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply.

Interestingly this is not based on the lawbook quote that you made. In fact you will not find it in the lawbook anywhere.

[MFA]

This is a very interesting thread!

Suppose you (west) lead a heart against 1NT-3NT. After the usual 30 sec., declarer wins in hand and plays the ♣J towards dummy's Axx.

E-W use smith's echo, but west has a tough problem whether or not to encourage a heart continuation.

Is it OK for him to take a pause to think with xxx? Well, at least partner had better follow the signal then. But what if declarer has ♣KJ10 and decides to let the jack run? Is he damaged then and entitled to a redress?

This situation came up recently. All players around the table were "solid experts - but not close to being world class".
- Any thoughts?

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Jan 11 2007, 09:17 PM, said:

badderzboy, on Jan 11 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply.

Interestingly this is not based on the lawbook quote that you made. In fact you will not find it in the lawbook anywhere.

Law 73A2 said:

Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick).

The EBU White Book addresses this question, and says that a pause by third hand at trick one, when declarer plays quickly from dummy, should not cause the TD to "entertain a claim that declarer was misled", even when third hand has a singleton. AFAIK, the ACBL does not address the question, but the practice is much the same. I don't know what other SOs do.

[blackshoe]

MFA, on Jan 11 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

This is a very interesting thread!

Suppose you (west) lead a heart against 1NT-3NT. After the usual 30 sec., declarer wins in hand and plays the ♣J towards dummy's Axx.

E-W use smith's echo, but west has a tough problem whether or not to encourage a heart continuation.

Is it OK for him to take a pause to think with xxx? Well, at least partner had better follow the signal then. But what if declarer has ♣KJ10 and decides to let the jack run? Is he damaged then and entitled to a redress?

This situation came up recently. All players around the table were "solid experts - but not close to being world class".
- Any thoughts?

West should have been thinking about whether to encourage a heart continuation during that "usual 30 seconds".

The relevant Laws here are

Law 73D1 said:

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

and

Law 72B1 said:

Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity.

In particular the second sentence in the first quoted law, and entirety of the second.

[MFA]

Jlall, on Jan 11 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

People who hesitate on smith should be barred from playing it. In fact smith should be barred altogether. If you play slightly out of tempo while giving a smith I guarantee I will know your holding, and so will your partner.

Yes. I play smith too, but I'm extremely aware of this problem and would much rather make a wrong signal than hesitate. (I was not at the actual table ). Barring smith is too harsh. Was it Hamman(?) (and later Rosenberg?) who advocated this, but I think that they are overreacting.

However, my question is more about whether declarer should be redressed after wrong-guessing the clubs. After all, who takes a significant pause here with the ♣Q before playing small? It was not just a fumble.
On the other hand, it's not poker :-)

@ blackshoe
Of course, west should have solved his problem during the 30 sec. He just didn't :-)

[pclayton]

MFA, on Jan 11 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jan 11 2007, 10:18 PM, said:

People who hesitate on smith should be barred from playing it. In fact smith should be barred altogether. If you play slightly out of tempo while giving a smith I guarantee I will know your holding, and so will your partner.

Yes. I play smith too, but I'm extremely aware of this problem and would much rather make a wrong signal than hesitate. (I was not at the actual table ). Barring smith is too harsh. Was it Hamman(?) (and later Rosenberg?) who advocated this, but I think that they are overreacting.

However, my question is more about whether declarer should be redressed after wrong-guessing the clubs. After all, who takes a significant pause here with the ♣Q before playing small? It was not just a fumble.
On the other hand, it's not poker :-)

@ blackshoe
Of course, west should have solved his problem during the 30 sec. He just didn't :-)

Rodwell had a quote about Smith in his Bridgematters interview. I'm sure others have rallied against it too.

I play Smith and I fight myself to play in tempo at T2. If Declarer plays in rapidfire and I havent had enough time to think about the hand, I think this greatly mitigates a smith / non-smith tank however.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 11 2007, 09:17 PM, said:

badderzboy, on Jan 11 2007, 10:24 PM, said:

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply.

Interestingly this is not based on the lawbook quote that you made. In fact you will not find it in the lawbook anywhere.

Law 73A2 said:

Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste (however, sponsoring organisations may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick).

The EBU White Book addresses this question, and says that a pause by third hand at trick one, when declarer plays quickly from dummy, should not cause the TD to "entertain a claim that declarer was misled", even when third hand has a singleton. AFAIK, the ACBL does not address the question, but the practice is much the same. I don't know what other SOs do.

Law 73D1 said:

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.  However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.  Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

To me such a regulation is in conflict with what is required by law.

As such the EBU regulation may be illegal since regulations are not allowed to be 'in conflict with the laws'

Law80F said:

to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

If this is standard practice and is supposed to be allowed then it would be better if the law was changed rather than writing a regulation that contradicts what is required by the law.