[ahri]

I wouldn't say so as it's somewhat usual (and advisable) to tank before following to the first trick.

[barmar]

ahri, on Jan 5 2010, 07:17 AM, said:

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?

I think the part people take issue with is "making him aware it's important part of the board". How does tanking send that specific message? The tank could just as easily be because partner has a problem of his own. How can you know that he's tanking for your benefit?

[peachy]

barmar, on Jan 5 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

ahri, on Jan 5 2010, 07:17 AM, said:

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?

I think the part people take issue with is "making him aware it's important part of the board". How does tanking send that specific message? The tank could just as easily be because partner has a problem of his own. How can you know that he's tanking for your benefit?

Only the person tanking knows why he tanked. If he meant it to "allow partner more time to figure this is an important moment in defense", it was improper.

If he were a c***t, he would just say he was thinking for himself if caught. Same thing when defender leaves his card out after trick and shuffles it to indicate he wants to see all four cards of that trick again. Or asks out loud. Or moves his head to look at all three directions of a trick in play after everyone has played a card to the trick, conveniently pausing at the "important" direction. Or any other maneuvre of attempting to send partner some message or make partner pay attention. IT IS ALL ILLEGAL.

[ahri]

barmar, on Jan 5 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

ahri, on Jan 5 2010, 07:17 AM, said:

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?

I think the part people take issue with is "making him aware it's important part of the board". How does tanking send that specific message? The tank could just as easily be because partner has a problem of his own. How can you know that he's tanking for your benefit?

It does not send that specific message, of course. But it for sure provides more time for partner to think.
When your partner pauses for a minute or two, do you think he is doing that because he wants to tease his opponents, or that at this particular part of the board the decision has to be made? I think it's VERY obvious to everyone that when someone pauses for a long thought, it's most probably very important situation on the board.
And the defender in question had no problem on the board, he was doing it to make his partner pay attention that the crucial trick is now.

[mrdct]

shyams, on Jan 5 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

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?

This is quite different as dummy isn't passing any potential UI to declarer (unless he's had a quick peek at the opponent's cards and spotted a bad trump break that needs to be handled with care or something like that).

However, strictly applying the Laws dummy has no right to provide such advice to declarer so this would be an infraction. But so too is saying "good luck partner" as you put dummy down, and I think anyone who calls the director on a dummy saying "good luck partner" would be well on his way to the a***hole hall of fame.

[blackshoe]

In what way is "good luck partner" an infraction?

[pooltuna]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

In what way is "good luck partner" an infraction?

The same way putting down the suit that is led last, thereby forcing partner to at least consider how he will play the first 3 suits

[blackshoe]

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

In what way is "good luck partner" an infraction?

The Laws on dummy's rights and dummy's limitations do not confer any rights on dummy to convey sentiments of good luck so strictly speaking saying "good luck partner" would be an infraction in exactly same way that "take your time", "remember to be careful about bad breaks" or "don't forget to draw trumps" would be.

Personally, I wouldn't even dream of calling the director on a dummy saying "good luck partner" but there is grey line somewhere where gratuitous comments by dummy cease to be goodwill sentiments and become participation in the play which is prohibited under Law 43A1©.

[JoAnneM]

This thread is exactly why I don't like to play against married couples who aren't very good players, but they seem to win a lot.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on Jan 5 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

The Laws on dummy's rights and dummy's limitations do not confer any rights on dummy to convey sentiments of good luck so strictly speaking saying "good luck partner" would be an infraction in exactly same way that "take your time", "remember to be careful about bad breaks" or "don't forget to draw trumps" would be.

Explain to me what possible suggestion regarding the play of the hand is contained in "good luck, partner". As opposed to your other two examples, which clearly do convey suggestions about how to play the hand.

You are basically saying that any utterance other than one of the Fifteen Words is extraneous, and therefor illegal. Extraneous I agree with. Illegal, no.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jan 5 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

mrdct, on Jan 5 2010, 05:55 PM, said:

The Laws on dummy's rights and dummy's limitations do not confer any rights on dummy to convey sentiments of good luck so strictly speaking saying "good luck partner" would be an infraction in exactly same way that "take your time", "remember to be careful about bad breaks" or "don't forget to draw trumps" would be.

Explain to me what possible suggestion regarding the play of the hand is contained in "good luck, partner". As opposed to your other two examples, which clearly do convey suggestions about how to play the hand.

You are basically saying that any utterance other than one of the Fifteen Words is extraneous, and therefor illegal. Extraneous I agree with. Illegal, no.

I have not said that saying "good luck partner" would convey any suggestion as to how to play the hand. I said that such a statement is not authorised under the Laws of Bridge. In the second part of my post which you didn't quote, I made my position on goodwill sentiments fairly clear in that in my opinion they would not be in breach of Law 43A1c.

Law 73A1 states "communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays". Accordingly, a goodwill sentiment such as "good luck partner" would be a breach of that Law. Of course nobody in their right mind would try to argue as such at the table.

[blackshoe]

The longer I play (and direct) this game, the more convinced I become that a lot of players are not in their right mind.

[aguahombre]

another weak assumption: that we ever had a right mind.

[Jlall]

So whats the rule on "take your time, partner"? I always think that this is illegal when they say it but obviously I would never say anything about it. Still, coaching must be illegal, playing too fast is a problem for a lot of people, and many of them play better when they remember to take their time, so if my LHO is in a slam and my RHO tells him to take his time, it really feels wrong.

This is especially true because people don't say take your time every single hand, so they probably say it on more important hands or hands they know will be harder (have you ever heard take your time, partner after 1N-3N and dummy is a 14 count? lol).

[jikl]

The only time I would even dream of saying "Take your time" would be if my partner has his back to the time clock and specifically asks me how much time is left in the round.

Sean

[gnasher]

If we're in time trouble, I sometimes look at the clock and tell the rest of the table how much time we have left. Sometimes I do this when I'm dummy. Usually, my partner and I are more at fault for the slow play than the opponents, so my side benefits more than the opponents from knowing exactly how much time is left.

Is that improper? Until now it hadn't occurred to me that it might be, but maybe it is.

[gnasher]

Going back to the original post, I think there are two separate questions. If your objective is

Quote

making him aware it's important part of the board

that's obviously illegal, because you're using your pause to communicate with partner.

If, on the other hand, the idea is

Quote

giving him a chance to evaluate the board

I think it should be illegal, but is it? Maybe it's an "undue hesitation"?

[barmar]

ahri, on Jan 5 2010, 01:59 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 5 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

ahri, on Jan 5 2010, 07:17 AM, said:

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?

I think the part people take issue with is "making him aware it's important part of the board". How does tanking send that specific message? The tank could just as easily be because partner has a problem of his own. How can you know that he's tanking for your benefit?

It does not send that specific message, of course. But it for sure provides more time for partner to think.
When your partner pauses for a minute or two, do you think he is doing that because he wants to tease his opponents, or that at this particular part of the board the decision has to be made? I think it's VERY obvious to everyone that when someone pauses for a long thought, it's most probably very important situation on the board.
And the defender in question had no problem on the board, he was doing it to make his partner pay attention that the crucial trick is now.

When my partner goes into the tank, I assume it's because HE has a problem. If he doesn't, his hesitation is an infraction, because the Laws say you should play with a consistent tempo to the extent possible (you're allowed to take time to think when you need it, not when you have nothing to think about). So his hesitation is improper, but it's NOT because he's conveying the message that you need to think about the hand more, because that's not the message you're likely to infer from the hesitation.

The hesitation is also UI to you, so whatever inferences you might take from it, you're not allowed to use. So if anything, you should be using the time to figure out what the hesitation demonstrably suggests, and which LAs you may be restricted from choosing as a result. This might make it harder for you to think about the hand as a whole. So if your partner is really ethical, this whole attempt could backfire.

[mycroft]

If partner is hesitating to tell me something, it's Illegal Communication Between Partners. If he succeeds, that's worse.
If partner is hesitating not to tell me something (but with no demonstrable bridge reason either), it's Prolonging play unnecessarily (and whether the "for the purpose of" clause is an issue, it certainly *will* disconcert the opponents).

In addition, one would have to be very careful to avoid deceiving the opponents in a situation where one has no demonstrable bridge reason to hesitate.

I can't see any situation where you could argue its legality. Proving it, on the other hand...