[djehuti]

---

MP's

I played this hand recently, in 4♥. I got a ♥ lead, to the Q and my ace. I played the ♥ jack , small, small , K .

Now my RHO played a ♠ and i thought about my options. After thinking for a while i played the ♠ Ace .

When the hand was over , my rho said that i must play the queen after thinking. What do you think? Thanks.

[Fluffy]

I was told that after hesitation declarer must win with the lowest equivalent card from a sequence, but I never read it anywhere.

[helene_t]

Agree with Justin. Very well put.

[Cascade]

I hate unwritten rules.

If it is not written it is not a rule.

It is inevitable that every bridge player i have ever known will vary their tempo at some point. I think when that happens you should just play the card you want to play perhaps apologizing - I usually do. However you may be libel to penalty if the opponents are misled and 'you could have known'. Most often there will not be a penalty. Apologizing does not absolve you of responsibility for your broken tempo. If it happens accept your part in causing the problem but try not to cause these problems.

The laws also do not distinguish between trick one and other tricks. I wish that if that is in reality how laws will be applied that it would be written down - see my first statement above.

I have a vague recollection of at least one case of a trick one hesition leading to some penalty or adjustment at a world championships.

[rogerclee]

I think that you should've asked your RHO who he thinks he is.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on Feb 29 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

I hate unwritten rules.

If it is not written it is not a rule.

[]

The laws also do not distinguish between trick one and other tricks.

That is not quite true.

The laws distinguish between having a bridge reason and not having a bridge reason for the hesitation. Planning the play of the whole hand at trick one is a very valid bridge reason. There is no good bridge reason for suddenly hesitating in the middle of trick 7 when you don't have to think about the card that you will play in trick 7.

So, since there is a good bridge reason for a hesitation before playing to trick one, in effect the Laws do distinguish between the play to trick one and the play to other tricks.

Many SO's have gone so far that they explicitly mention the trick one hesitation in their Conditions of Contests (which also are rules). Often these CoC's will state that declarer should wait with the play to trick one and if he doesn't RHO has the right to plan the whole play, regardless of the cards he holds.

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on Mar 2 2008, 07:12 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 29 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

I hate unwritten rules.

If it is not written it is not a rule.

[]

The laws also do not distinguish between trick one and other tricks.

That is not quite true.

The laws distinguish between having a bridge reason and not having a bridge reason for the hesitation. Planning the play of the whole hand at trick one is a very valid bridge reason. There is no good bridge reason for suddenly hesitating in the middle of trick 7 when you don't have to think about the card that you will play in trick 7.

So, since there is a good bridge reason for a hesitation before playing to trick one, in effect the Laws do distinguish between the play to trick one and the play to other tricks.

Many SO's have gone so far that they explicitly mention the trick one hesitation in their Conditions of Contests (which also are rules). Often these CoC's will state that declarer should wait with the play to trick one and if he doesn't RHO has the right to plan the whole play, regardless of the cards he holds.

Rik

Where can I find these regulations?

The laws don't mention bridge reasons or anything like that as far as I am aware.

The 2007 laws do include the possibility of a regulation for a mandatory pause at trick one.

As far as I am aware I have never played a game where such a regulation exists.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Mar 2 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

The laws don't mention bridge reasons or anything like that as far as I am aware.

Law 73

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. Inadvertent Variations
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.
2. Intentional Variations
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'. What it does mention is that you can't hesitate or change the manner of play in order to fool the opponents. This is generally interpreted as 'if you didn't have a bridge reason for hesitating, you must have been doing it to fool the opponents'. Otherwise it would take a psychic to enforce this rule.

[FrancesHinden]

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 3 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

Sorry, stopped reading too early!

[barmar]

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 01:56 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 3 2008, 12:54 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

Sorry, stopped reading too early!

To quote Maxwell Smart, "missed it by that much."

[Cascade]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 4 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

This law still does not distinguish between trick one and any other tricks.

It doesn't seem reasonable to say that thinking with a singleton at trick one is a demonstable bridge reason but thinking at trick two or later with a singleton is not.

As I said there is provision in the 2007 laws for Regulating Authorities to mandate a pause at trick one. If they do not then the laws make no distinction between trick one and later tricks.

[blackshoe]

The same provision is in the 1997 laws.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on Mar 4 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 4 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

This law still does not distinguish between trick one and any other tricks.

But of course it does. Just because you do not see the quote "trick one" or "trick two" in this law that doesn't mean that this law doesn't distinguish between planning the play of the whole hand at trick one and thinking with a singleton in trick 7.

In short, this law says that if you have a bridge reason you may think. If you don't have a bridge reason [] you may not.

Planning the play of the whole hand at trick 1 is an excellent bridge reason to think. Virtually all bridge text books recommend to pause and plan the play of the whole hand at trick one. This is for bridge technical reasons, known to anybody with a little bridge experience.

You will not find a single text book that will recommend you to suddenly start thinking in trick 7, before you follow suit with a singleton. There is no bridge technical reason to do that (other than to mislead opponents).

Rik

[Cascade]

Trinidad, on Mar 7 2008, 02:00 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 4 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 4 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

This law still does not distinguish between trick one and any other tricks.

But of course it does. Just because you do not see the quote "trick one" or "trick two" in this law that doesn't mean that this law doesn't distinguish between planning the play of the whole hand at trick one and thinking with a singleton in trick 7.

In short, this law says that if you have a bridge reason you may think. If you don't have a bridge reason [] you may not.

Planning the play of the whole hand at trick 1 is an excellent bridge reason to think. Virtually all bridge text books recommend to pause and plan the play of the whole hand at trick one. This is for bridge technical reasons, known to anybody with a little bridge experience.

You will not find a single text book that will recommend you to suddenly start thinking in trick 7, before you follow suit with a singleton. There is no bridge technical reason to do that (other than to mislead opponents).

Rik

I completely disagree with this post.

The same "bridge reason" to plan the subsequent play occurs at every trick up to trick eleven.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on Mar 6 2008, 12:32 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Mar 7 2008, 02:00 AM, said:

Cascade, on Mar 4 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 4 2008, 06:54 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Mar 3 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing that explicitly mentions 'bridge reasons'.

The 'bridge reason' bit in the 1997 laws is 73F2

"if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C), "

This law still does not distinguish between trick one and any other tricks.

But of course it does. Just because you do not see the quote "trick one" or "trick two" in this law that doesn't mean that this law doesn't distinguish between planning the play of the whole hand at trick one and thinking with a singleton in trick 7.

In short, this law says that if you have a bridge reason you may think. If you don't have a bridge reason [] you may not.

Planning the play of the whole hand at trick 1 is an excellent bridge reason to think. Virtually all bridge text books recommend to pause and plan the play of the whole hand at trick one. This is for bridge technical reasons, known to anybody with a little bridge experience.

You will not find a single text book that will recommend you to suddenly start thinking in trick 7, before you follow suit with a singleton. There is no bridge technical reason to do that (other than to mislead opponents).

Rik

I completely disagree with this post.

The same "bridge reason" to plan the subsequent play occurs at every trick up to trick eleven.

Indeed it does, but to a lesser extent. In the case of the playing of a singleton in trick 7, the extent has gone down to 0. After all, you could have done this planning in trick 6 (or 1 ) and you can still do it in trick 8 without giving up any of the options that you had at trick 7.

At trick 1 this is entirely different. You didn't have the possibility to plan at trick 0.

There is another reason why there is a distinct difference between trick 1 and the other tricks. By playing a card to trick 7 you are only committing to play that card. In the case of a singleton that will never be a problem. It is inevitable that you play that card anyway.

But by playing to trick 1, you are not only committing to playing the card (which, again, is a meaningless right if you have a singleton). You also forfeit some rights (e.g. the right to ask for a review of the auction). Already thinking about the auction and the meaning of the various calls and evaluating whether dummy is as expected is a good enough bridge reason to take a pause.

In trick 1, you have a bridge reason by default, since after your play to trick 1, you have limited your options, even if you were holding a singleton in the suit led.

Rik

[Cascade]

These affects are very minor. How long does it take you to decide whether to ask for a review of the bidding?

The laws make it clear that regulating authorities have the right to mandate a pause at trick one. When they do not it is implicit that normal tempo is required especially in situations where it might deceive.

If the regulating authorities did not want this then they should mandate the pause.

[mycroft]

"My normal tempo third-hand to trick one is 15 seconds or so after dummy comes down. I didn't vary it this time, and I don't see why I should have to give my partner UI that I have a singleton by varying my tempo. If you don't believe me, ask my previous opponents."

[barmar]

Cascade, on Mar 6 2008, 04:27 PM, said:

The laws make it clear that regulating authorities have the right to mandate a pause at trick one. When they do not it is implicit that normal tempo is required especially in situations where it might deceive.

But it's very unlikely that a pause at trick 1 would deceive in any situation. As others have pointed out, bridge players are routinely taught to take extra time at trick 1 to plan the play of the entire hand.

In general, players need to think longer when something unexpected happens -- you have to stop to revise your plan. Since you have very little knowledge of the hand at trick 1, something unexpected is always happening then.

I suspect the primary intent of the mandated trick-1 pauses is to address the common practice of third hand announcing "I have no problem with this trick, I'm thinking about the whole hand" when declarer plays quickly from dummy (if they're not consistent about this, there's a UI problem in itself). If declarer and defender are required to pause, there's no more need for someone to apologize.