[ahri]

Imagine situation like this. You play the defence, and you just won a trick. To you, it's obvious you need to cashout. Your partner could have problems seeing it or he might not be at your level of play. Is it ethical to think-tank for a bit thus giving him a chance to evaluate the board (and making him aware it's important part of the board)? Did you ever do it or encounter this?

[jillybean]

It is not only unethical but it is against the laws.

[mrdct]

I would suggest that it would be highly unethical and quite close to cheating to do this as you are purposefully generating unauthorised information for your partner. Moreover, it would be a clear breach of Law 73A1 "Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays".

Refer also to Law 73D1 "Variations in Tempo or Manner. 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. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk".

To help keep a clear conscience in such situations, perhaps a more defensible approach would be to have a good think about the order in which you perform your part of the cash out to maximise partner's chances of getting the gag and then it's up to your partner's ethics to decide whether he's acting on your hesitation or acting on the sequence in which you have played your cards.

Having said all that, I think it would be virtually impossible for your opponents to successfully argue damage but you would certainly develop a reputation that you wouldn't necessarily be proud of.

An analagous situation is often seen in pro/client or expert/non-expert partnerships where the expert or pro asks questions about the auction for which they very well know the answers through familarity with their opponents methods with the sole purpose of drawing their less-experienced partner's attention to the nuances of the auction that they might not otherwise pick-up on if they don't ask the right questions. Highly dodgey in my books.

[JoAnneM]

I think it's much better, legal, ethical, to play in tempo and let your partner who is not as fine a player as you either play it right or make a mistake. We certainly learn from our errors.

[peachy]

It would be illegal, against the rules of the game, to try to influence partner's actions with anything other than the cards played and the bids/calls made.

[gwnn]

how can anyone with such a cute and fluffy pink toy suggest such a despicable way of cheating?

[helene_t]

I think you misunderstand. As I read it, the purpose of slowing down the play was to give partner more time to think - if you play fast, partner may not have enough time to work out the defense unless he tanks himself, which he might want to avoid in order not to transmit UI (and info to declarer).

I think that could be an acceptable policy if done always when playing with a weaker/slower partner, not just in situations in which partner is likely to have more to think about than he realizes. I.e. if partner's natural tempo is 6 seconds and yours is 3 seconds, try to slow down a little if the time allows for it.

Also, some people get nervous from lightening-fast opposition/partners.

I think that if you do so you should also slow down when declaring against weaker/slower opposition.

Not sure if I have done this. Probably subconsciously sometimes.

[Ant590]

I have played with partners who always follow declarer's tempo, regardless of how complex the hand is (some because they're much better and need to think less, and some who are not but do anyway).

Sometimes I need to slow down and think and I'd be quite peeved if this was argued to be an attempt to influence partner's thinking. For instance if a partner notices I'm thinking and slows down their game to allow me more time per card, is that unethical?

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

An analagous situation is often seen in pro/client or expert/non-expert partnerships where the expert or pro asks questions about the auction for which they very well know the answers through familarity with their opponents methods with the sole purpose of drawing their less-experienced partner's attention to the nuances of the auction that they might not otherwise pick-up on if they don't ask the right questions. Highly dodgey in my books.

This can be a grey area.

One that happened to me a long while back.

Partner opens 3♣, next hand doubles with no alert. You happened to read the CC earlier and know they play penalty doubles and have failed to alert, you suspect partner doesn't know. You have an easy pass whatever double is.

Asking the question will probably prevent some directorial nastiness later if partner plays 3♣x and misplays it due to the failure to alert placing the clubs in the wrong hand.

I actually stayed silent, and partner indeed called the director having gone at least one more off than he would have done if he'd known the clubs were over him. The opponents at this point swore blind they had alerted the double (I knew they hadn't as I knew an alert was coming so made sure I was looking at the doubler's partner for the whole period she might have alerted it). The director was a muppet and had never heard of the line "it's your responsibility to ensure opponents see your alerts" so we lost the ruling, and at that time, that line was not in the obvious place in the director's documentation. Funnily enough, it was made a lot more prominent in the next publish of the EBU documents, so I suspect the appeal got reviewed back at EBU HQ.

There are times where a question can be asked for the right reasons even if it's technically illegal.

[ahri]

gwnn, on Jan 4 2010, 07:26 AM, said:

how can anyone with such a cute and fluffy pink toy suggest such a despicable way of cheating?

I encountered it and didn't know how to react.

[pooltuna]

ahri, on Jan 4 2010, 11:14 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jan 4 2010, 07:26 AM, said:

how can anyone with such a cute and fluffy pink toy suggest such a despicable way of cheating?

I encountered it and didn't know how to react.

Enforcement of the rules is very difficult as proving it is almost impossible. Nevertheless complain so that the TD will know something may be going on

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Jan 4 2010, 08:17 AM, said:

I think you misunderstand. As I read it, the purpose of slowing down the play was to give partner more time to think - if you play fast, partner may not have enough time to work out the defense unless he tanks himself, which he might want to avoid in order not to transmit UI (and info to declarer).

I think that could be an acceptable policy if done always when playing with a weaker/slower partner, not just in situations in which partner is likely to have more to think about than he realizes. I.e. if partner's natural tempo is 6 seconds and yours is 3 seconds, try to slow down a little if the time allows for it.

Also, some people get nervous from lightening-fast opposition/partners.

I think that if you do so you should also slow down when declaring against weaker/slower opposition.

Not sure if I have done this. Probably subconsciously sometimes.

I agree that most of the responses seem to believe that the tank was supposed to convey information. In fact, the OP stated that the purpose of the tank was to give partner a chance to think. There was no intention to convey information.

That said, I find it to be at least in a grey area, if not downright unethical. Players are under an obligation to play at a reasonably constant tempo whenever possible. To vary one's tempo for any reason other than one relating to one's own bridge problem strikes me as improper.

Partner is required to think on his or her own, and slowing down the tempo for partner's benefit is not proper.

[jillybean]

ahri, on Jan 3 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

Imagine situation like this. You play the defence, and you just won a trick. To you, it's obvious you need to cashout. Your partner could have problems seeing it or he might not be at your level of play. Is it ethical to think-tank for a bit thus giving him a chance to evaluate the board (and making him aware it's important part of the board)? Did you ever do it or encounter this?

If this isn't considered intentional illegal information I'll eat my socks.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on Jan 4 2010, 11:40 AM, said:

I agree that most of the responses seem to believe that the tank was supposed to convey information. In fact, the OP stated that the purpose of the tank was to give partner a chance to think. There was no intention to convey information.

That said, I find it to be at least in a grey area, if not downright unethical. Players are under an obligation to play at a reasonably constant tempo whenever possible. To vary one's tempo for any reason other than one relating to one's own bridge problem strikes me as improper.

Partner is required to think on his or her own, and slowing down the tempo for partner's benefit is not proper.

Most of the responses have been made with the understanding that the player was intentionally taking extra time at a critical point. This may not pass specific information regarding the hand other than it is a critical point. Like others, I see this as unethical.

I also agree with Helene (and Art, I think). I think it is OK to deliberately slow your tempo so long as it is reasonably constant.

[ArtK78]

jillybean, on Jan 4 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

ahri, on Jan 3 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

Imagine situation like this. You play the defence, and you just won a trick. To you, it's obvious you need to cashout. Your partner could have problems seeing it or he might not be at your level of play. Is it ethical to think-tank for a bit thus giving him a chance to evaluate the board (and making him aware it's important part of the board)? Did you ever do it or encounter this?

If this isn't considered intentional illegal information I'll eat my socks.

Would you like some Grey Poupon with your socks?

There is a difference between tanking to convey information (I might be able to win this trick, but I think I will duck) and tanking to provide more time to think. Yes, the statement that you highlighted is troubling, but how can one actually convey that message as opposed to the normal bridge message - "I have a problem at this time which requires some additional time to think." Unless one has a private understanding with one's partner that you might tank at some point in a hand to convey the message that a crucial juncture in a hand has been reached, I don't see it. [Of course such a private understanding would be a gross violation of the laws, so we don't have to go there.]

So, as a practical matter, I don't see the tank to provide time to think as conveying unauthorized information. That doesn't mean that I approve of it, but I don't see it as the passing of unauthorized information.

[jdonn]

I agree with Art, despite the bad wording of the original question. You aren't hoping partner will think "Josh is taking forever, therefore this is a critical part of the hand, therefore I better think about things." You are hoping partner will think "Josh is taking forever, therefore I have nothing to do, therefore I might as well think about things." That doesn't mean I approve, but I don't think any UI is transmitted, at least not any intentional true UI.

[mrdct]

Hers's another good analogous situation that one often sees with some pro/client or expert/non-expert partnerships:

In the defence, after everyone has turned their trick over except for himself, the pro/expert casually asks "can I just see those pips again please" to highlight for partner that an important pip has just revealled itself somewhere; perhaps a critical count card, a developing a tenace situation or a more sinister "have a good look at my pip because this is a suit preference situation".

[blackshoe]

The problem is not with the intent, but with the inferences partner may make. If he then acts on those inferences (whether consciously or subconsciously, and whether the action is successful or not) he may be in violation of the law.

[ahri]

jdonn, on Jan 4 2010, 02:14 PM, said:

I agree with Art, despite the bad wording of the original question.

What part of original question do you consider bad wording?

[shyams]

Here's another situation to consider:

I'm playing with a WC player in the club. We land in a slam on a board (after I have blundered and gone down in a cold contract on the previous one).

LHO leads, WC partner puts down dummy & within a couple of seconds I call for a card from dummy. Before pulling the card, partner sighs and says "Don't hurry, partner. We still have 10 minutes before the round is called". I take a good 3 minutes on the hand (including declarer's play to trick 1). Despite my limited playing skills, I find a strong line of play and make the very tough slam.

Isn't this somewhat analogous to the OP?