[zareg2]

When defending and partner leads a suit in which you have a singleton, in live bridge one can table a card face down (whether or not a singleton) and indicate you are thinking about the hand in general.

How do you handle the problem in BBO? If I hesitate to think I am accused of cheating and if I play immediately I lose a legal opportunity to consider the hand in its entirety.

Should I just give up this option and hope I have a later opportunity?

[mike777]

zareg2, on Jan 4 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

When defending and partner leads a suit in which you have a singleton, in live bridge one can table a card face down (whether or not a singleton) and indicate you are thinking about the hand in general.

How do you handle the problem in BBO? If I hesitate to think I am accused of cheating and if I play immediately I lose a legal opportunity to consider the hand in its entirety.

Should I just give up this option and hope I have a later opportunity?

Online, just play in Tempo.

If you break tempo because of non bridge thinking issue, just type, no problem here.

You are allowed to break tempo because you are thinking of a bridge problem, partner needs to not take advantage of it. Partner has the ethical problem,,,,you are allowed to think.

[pclayton]

Online its perfectly fine to say to the table, "I have no problem on this trick".

[PassedOut]

As do many players, I always pause a few seconds before playing to trick one.

If I were to say something like "thinking" only when I did not have a problem -- such as when I held a singleton -- that would be unauthorized information to partner, I believe.

[Trinidad]

Just my two cents:

I think it is normal to think as third hand when dummy comes down. I don't like the idea of playing a card face down to trick one and then keep on planning anyway. What if you suddenly see that you should play differently anyway?

Should you then be allowed to change the card? That would pass unauthorized information (UI) that you DON'T have a singleton.

But if you are not allowed to change your play, it wouldn't be smart to play the card face down since you are risking to play the wrong card if you don't have your defensive plan ready. Thus, the only time that you would actually play a card face down would be when you truely didn't have anything to think about. I can only imagine doing that when I have a singleton. That is pretty clear UI too.

So, at trick one, I always think. Whether I have 12 cards in the suit led or just 1. And don't be fooled by opponents who claim that you don't have a bridge reason for your hesitation. Avoiding passing UI by making your plays in the same tempo is an excellent bridge reason.

Obviously, this only goes for trick one.

In addition, in my opinion declarers should not play fast from dummy to trick one. The only "good" that it will do is catch third hand in an ethical problem every now and then. That should not be the type of good that declarer should be striving for.

In some jurisdiction it is actually prescribed for declarer to take about 10 seconds before playing from dummy.

Rik

[nick_s]

zareg2, on Jan 4 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

When defending and partner leads a suit in which you have a singleton, in live bridge one can table a card face down (whether or not a singleton) and indicate you are thinking about the hand in general.

You can also play the card in tempo and then not turn it face down while you think.

...not that this has anything much to do with the question asked (sorry!), but it gets you around the potential UI problems associated with playing the card face down.

...or is there some problem with doing this that I'm unaware of?

[blackshoe]

The problem, Nick, is that many players will ignore the fact you haven't turned your card yet, and go ahead and lead to the next trick. And there's nothing illegal about that.

[blackshoe]

Taking a reasonable time to think at trick one (IMO 30 seconds or so) is not breaking tempo. Placing a card face down on the table (in f2f bridge) is a breach of proper procedure, except when making the opening lead.

[Free]

At trick 1 you have the right to think, whatever your holding in the current suit is. If opps accuse you of cheating, call the TD and let him point out your rights. Saying anything at the table like "I don't have a problem here", be it online or offline, is imo the wrong approach.

[jdonn]

Free, on Jan 5 2008, 06:13 AM, said:

At trick 1 you have the right to think, whatever your holding in the current suit is.  If opps accuse you of cheating, call the TD and let him point out your rights.  Saying anything at the table like "I don't have a problem here", be it online or offline, is imo the wrong approach.

The problem is people who CLAIM to "always think at trick 1", but then play very fast at trick 1 when they want partner to follow the obvious defense (for example when they are returning a singleton.) Rosenberg talked a little about that in his book, and there just isn't much that can be done unless it was made illegal to not think at trick 1, which is of course totally impractical since most players are casual.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

Free, on Jan 5 2008, 06:13 AM, said:

At trick 1 you have the right to think, whatever your holding in the current suit is.  If opps accuse you of cheating, call the TD and let him point out your rights.  Saying anything at the table like "I don't have a problem here", be it online or offline, is imo the wrong approach.

The problem is people who CLAIM to "always think at trick 1", but then play very fast at trick 1 when they want partner to follow the obvious defense (for example when they are returning a singleton.) Rosenberg talked a little about that in his book, and there just isn't much that can be done unless it was made illegal to not think at trick 1, which is of course totally impractical since most players are casual.

Wow well said. and I thought i was the only one who thought this.

[Free]

Yeah Rosenberg talked about a lot of ethical problems (like smith echo). He makes good points indeed, but the solution is still a responsability of every player on his own.

If people are accusing you of cheating if you're thinking with a singleton at trick 1 in the above situation, it's not because you gave UI to your partner, but because declarer thinks he got fooled by a misleading hesitation (which can't be the case in trick 1).

The ethical problems when you're playing fast is indeed the other side of the story...

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jan 5 2008, 05:46 PM, said:

The problem is people who CLAIM to "always think at trick 1", but then play very fast at trick 1 when they want partner to follow the obvious defense (for example when they are returning a singleton.) Rosenberg talked a little about that in his book, and there just isn't much that can be done unless it was made illegal to not think at trick 1, which is of course totally impractical since most players are casual.

Playing fast at trick one is breaking tempo just as much as playing slowly is breaking tempo. However, the interesting thing is that if declarer takes the time he should at this trick, his RHO can't use this "play fast" ploy - unless he takes even longer before he plays when he doesn't want the obvious defense, which is also breaking tempo (and, of course, cheating if he's doing it deliberately).

[1eyedjack]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2008, 05:33 AM, said:

The problem, Nick, is that many players will ignore the fact you haven't turned your card yet, and go ahead and lead to the next trick. And there's nothing illegal about that.

Does it matter if they do that? As long as you do not play to the next trick until you yourself have closed the previous trick, any further time that you spend before playing to the next trick cannot reasonably be construed as thinking about that (subsequent) trick.

[blackshoe]

1eyedjack, on Jan 7 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

Does it matter if they do that? As long as you do not play to the next trick until you yourself have closed the previous trick, any further time that you spend before playing to the next trick cannot reasonably be construed as thinking about that (subsequent) trick.

It matters. Players seem to develop tunnel vision in such situations. Suppose you leave your card face up on the current trick, which declarer, on your left, wins in hand. Now he leads to the next trick, partner plays, declarer plays from dummy, counts to three (silently, we hope), turns to you and says "come on, come on, you're holding up the game!" Of course, one could (probably should) call the TD at this point, but now your thought process is derailed. Can you start over? Will the TD require you to "just play something"? I've seen that one. For the poor guy who's just trying to figure out how to defend the hand, it sucks.

Even if declarer doesn't actually say anything, there's still pressure on the thinker.

I've seen this situation get even worse, when declarer ignores that "thinker" hasn't actually played to the second trick, and goes ahead and leads to a third trick. Now you really have a mess.