[billw55]

The thread about fast play got me thinking about this again.

A while back I was defending 3NT. My partner led a small spade, I held Kx. Declarer called for a card from dummy as soon as it was down. Now, I have been taught that trick one is the time to think, so I did, planning my defense for the hand, then eventually played the obvious ♠K. At the end of the hand, declarer was cranky at me, indirectly accusing me of tanking deliberately to deceive, when there was no problem.

What is the correct procedure here? To place the obvious card on the table face down, then think? Or something else?

[jdonn]

What you did was fine. It's not too awful to say "just thinking about the whole hand", but I don't think that's the best procedure because sometimes you really are thinking about that trick and you should have no reason to distinguish those times for declarer. It should simply be understood that declarer and fourth hand are entitled to a small trick one tank.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

It should simply be understood that declarer and fourth hand are entitled to a small trick one tank.

This.


The only thing I don't really like is
opening lead
think by declarer.....
declarer plays card from dummy
third hand plays
declarer thinks again before playing from hand, with nothing to think about. Declarer should do his trick 1 thinking before playing from dummy, not before playing from hand (unless RHO's card is necessary input to his decision).

[blackshoe]

billw55, on May 5 2010, 05:09 PM, said:

The thread about fast play got me thinking about this again.

A while back I was defending 3NT. My partner led a small spade, I held Kx. Declarer called for a card from dummy as soon as it was down. Now, I have been taught that trick one is the time to think, so I did, planning my defense for the hand, then eventually played the obvious ♠K. At the end of the hand, declarer was cranky at me, indirectly accusing me of tanking deliberately to deceive, when there was no problem.

What is the correct procedure here? To place the obvious card on the table face down, then think? Or something else?

As others have said, you are entitled to think at trick one. If declarer doesn't want to bother that's his problem. But accusing someone of deliberate cheating is not right, even if it's done indirectly.

BTW, declarer would have been wrong even if your King had been singleton.

[Jlall]

Yes you get free reign at trick 1 to do what you want. Not only do you not have to say just thinking about the hand, it is in fact wrong to do so.

Imagine the scenario where you're playing a pair game, the first 5 rounds you said "just thinking about the hand" twice. Now you're playign round 6 and you are thinking about the trick not the hand so you don't say anything. Well, your partner knows that you're thinking about the trick, and your opps don't know that he knows this, so you have effectively been able to cheat.

Now, I think pretty much everyone who says just thinking about the hand is just trying to be nice/ethical and not nefarious, but hopefully they see the problem.

Another way to look at it is even if you're playing a long knockout match, you are disadvantaging yourself by saying this and letting declarer play fast at trick 1 and then know every time if you have to think about trick 1 or not. This is not fair to you.

The correct solution is that you are allowed to think as long as you want at trick 1 specifically, and everyone knows this, so you can do it and not say anything. This also doesn't give declarer free reign to fast play you and then get info from doing so. If he wants to play fast that's fine, you can take as long as you want.

If declarer was cranky that you took a long time at trick 1 just say you're allowed to think as long as you want about the hand at trick 1, and you are being ETHICAL by doing so even if you don't really have much to think about so that you do not give UI to your partner the times that you play QUICKLY.

[straube]

Maybe this is the occasion to ask about a hand I kibitzed years ago. On opening lead, an expert defender tanked for a very long time (seemed like minutes) before contributing a small card. When his partner got on lead, he lead back his initial suit to partner's ace and then received a ruff. Obviously, the expert (he really was an expert) was deciding whether partner had lead from a singleton or a doubleton, but the tank made it painfully obvious that he held the ace. Had he ducked after a more reasonable study of dummy, his partner may or may not have decided to switch suits.

The opponents rolled their eyes, but never called a director. I thought they should have. Am I wrong?

[Jlall]

straube, on May 5 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

The opponents rolled their eyes, but never called a director. I thought they should have. Am I wrong?

They could have called the director for sure.

If you think for a longer amount of time than normal at trick 1 you have broken tempo. This is hard to prove etc, but if you think for 2 minutes for instance in a situation where it's obvious what your problem would be at trick 1, I don't think you could reasonably argue that you "always" think for 2 minutes in this situation.

That being said, people freak out about this situation, but it is an attitude situation. If the expert ducked but played an encouraging card, or later played a suit preference card then despite the UI, there is AI leading to continuing the suit. Even without a signal, often it's your only play.

So you'd have to show that there was an LA to continuing the suit, despite signalling and bridge logic, on top of the fact that there was UI from the BIT imo.

The USBF gives guidance for declarers to always take 15 seconds at trick 1. If you play after 15 seconds, and RHO thinks, I think that will generally be considered a BIT.

There are no hard and fast rules but obviously 2 minutes indicates some tough problem, and in the example given it's obvious it's whether to win the ace or not.

[barmar]

Jlall, on May 5 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

If you think for a longer amount of time than normal at trick 1 you have broken tempo.

While it's true that this is a tempo break and UI, it's not clear that it demonstrably suggests any particular action by partner. If the hand presents difficult defensive problems, you could still be planning the entire defense, not what to play on that trick.

However, if you actually were thinking about what to play on that trick, and partner finds the defense suggested by it, you could have a tough time convincing the TD that no advantage was taken of the UI.

[dake50]

Have a paradigm or checklist as 3rd hand to run through, eg should I cover that later Q? signal twice to emphasize I really do want some play?

THEN what to do on trick one. Usually this takes 12-15secs. Take that time to let partner run through his checks without later getting caught giving a "tell".

[Free]

jdonn, on May 5 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

It should simply be understood that declarer and fourth hand are entitled to a small trick one tank.

Isn't declarer the 4th hand at trick 1?

[Free]

I encountered a similar situation once. Partner lead a ♠ from Qxxx and in dummy was KJT. Declarer quickly played the T and I had ♠xx. I knew he would be in dummy for trick 2, so I analyzed the situation so I would be prepared for every lead at t2. Declarer had ♠A9xx, but because of my pause declarer gave me ♠Q so after some tricks he played ♠K and ran the J. He was angry that I had to think without a problem in ♠s.

While he's right that I don't have a problem in ♠, I had to prepare for 3 or more leads from dummy at trick 2. He's good enough to know that I'm allowed to think at trick 1 about the whole hand, but his first reaction didn't take that into account...

[Cascade]

I have a different view based on L73A2

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism
or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating
Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of
the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

This law allows for the possibility of a Regulating Authority to mandate a trick one pause.

While it seems to be quite common practice by some players to pause at trick one there does not appear to be any legal protection for such a pause.

Given that the law allows for the possibility of a mandated trick one pause I think it is significant that most if not all Regulating Authorities do not so mandate. Therefore a trick one pause is subject to the same standards as pauses in other situations.

I recall hearing of a situation in international competion possibly a world championship in which there was a trick one pause that misled declarer and I believe there was an adjustment and an unsuccessful appeal.

[Cyberyeti]

Cascade, on May 6 2010, 04:07 AM, said:

I have a different view based on L73A2

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism
or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating
Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of
the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

This law allows for the possibility of a Regulating Authority to mandate a trick one pause.

While it seems to be quite common practice by some players to pause at trick one there does not appear to be any legal protection for such a pause.

Given that the law allows for the possibility of a mandated trick one pause I think it is significant that most if not all Regulating Authorities do not so mandate.  Therefore a trick one pause is subject to the same standards as pauses in other situations.

I recall hearing of a situation in international competion possibly a world championship in which there was a trick one pause that misled declarer and I believe there was an adjustment and an unsuccessful appeal.

From the EBU orange book

7 F 2 It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play. However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause. For example, if third hand has a singleton and declarer plays quickly from dummy, it is entirely legitimate for third hand to consider the hand generally.

So clearly some authorities have thought about this.

[blackshoe]

Law 73A2 speaks of "undue hesitation or haste". Frankly, I think declarer's instantaneous play from dummy is "undue", although whether it gives UI to dummy is of course irrelevant. However, if declarer plays quickly from dummy, and then third hand also plays quickly, that's "undue haste". Conversely, taking the time to think about the whole hand before playing to trick one is not "undue hesitation" on the part of either third hand or declarer. So while the same standards apply to calls at trick one as later, that does not extend to saying that what length of time constitutes "in tempo" is the same.

[billw55]

Cyberyeti, on May 6 2010, 05:19 AM, said:

From the EBU orange book

7 F 2 It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play. However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause. For example, if third hand has a singleton and declarer plays quickly from dummy, it is entirely legitimate for third hand to consider the hand generally.

So clearly some authorities have thought about this.

Well that is about as clear as it gets. I wish ACBL was too.

[pirate22]

as a defender-when partner leads and declarer with no hesitation calls for a card quickly(very important quickly) no cosideration by declarer,you are allowed time to think,and plan your plays---------if declarer considers dummy(time for defender to think also) when declarer calls for a card P.I.T play in tempo.now a level field is in motion. regards

[aguahombre]

And if my thought processes are slower than that of declarer, who has paused --but not as long as I would have liked?

[Cascade]

Cyberyeti, on May 6 2010, 10:19 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 6 2010, 04:07 AM, said:

I have a different view based on L73A2

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism
or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating
Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of
the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

This law allows for the possibility of a Regulating Authority to mandate a trick one pause.

While it seems to be quite common practice by some players to pause at trick one there does not appear to be any legal protection for such a pause.

Given that the law allows for the possibility of a mandated trick one pause I think it is significant that most if not all Regulating Authorities do not so mandate.  Therefore a trick one pause is subject to the same standards as pauses in other situations.

I recall hearing of a situation in international competion possibly a world championship in which there was a trick one pause that misled declarer and I believe there was an adjustment and an unsuccessful appeal.

From the EBU orange book

7 F 2 It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play. However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause. For example, if third hand has a singleton and declarer plays quickly from dummy, it is entirely legitimate for third hand to consider the hand generally.

So clearly some authorities have thought about this.

This is a poorly worded regulation in my opinion.

L73A allows for a mandated pause but this regulation stops short of that and says "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit" (emphasis mine).

This flexibility legitimizes sharp practice since while the pause by third hand is optional the regulation directs that "no inference can be ... taken from such a pause".

This allows a player to attempt to vary tempo in order to deceive declarer with complete protection.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on May 7 2010, 12:39 AM, said:

Law 73A2 speaks of "undue hesitation or haste". Frankly, I think declarer's instantaneous play from dummy is "undue", although whether it gives UI to dummy is of course irrelevant. However, if declarer plays quickly from dummy, and then third hand also plays quickly, that's "undue haste". Conversely, taking the time to think about the whole hand before playing to trick one is not "undue hesitation" on the part of either third hand or declarer. So while the same standards apply to calls at trick one as later, that does not extend to saying that what length of time constitutes "in tempo" is the same.

L73D1 makes some attempt to clarify the tempo issue with

"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."

I don't think it reasonable to argue that 30 sec at trick one and 2 sec at subsequent tricks is a "steady tempo".

Further players who think at trick one typically are not "steady" in that tempo from hand to hand. One hand may require 10 sec thought and the next 30 sec or longer etc.

If trick one is to be considered differently than other tricks then I think it needs to be written into the laws or a trick one pause be mandated by the Regulating Authority as allowed by 73A2.

[Cyberyeti]

Cascade, on May 6 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on May 6 2010, 10:19 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 6 2010, 04:07 AM, said:

I have a different view based on L73A2

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism
or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. But Regulating
Authorities may require mandatory pauses, as on the first round of
the auction, or after a skip-bid warning, or on the first trick."

This law allows for the possibility of a Regulating Authority to mandate a trick one pause.

While it seems to be quite common practice by some players to pause at trick one there does not appear to be any legal protection for such a pause.

Given that the law allows for the possibility of a mandated trick one pause I think it is significant that most if not all Regulating Authorities do not so mandate.  Therefore a trick one pause is subject to the same standards as pauses in other situations.

I recall hearing of a situation in international competion possibly a world championship in which there was a trick one pause that misled declarer and I believe there was an adjustment and an unsuccessful appeal.

From the EBU orange book

7 F 2 It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play. However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause. For example, if third hand has a singleton and declarer plays quickly from dummy, it is entirely legitimate for third hand to consider the hand generally.

So clearly some authorities have thought about this.

This is a poorly worded regulation in my opinion.

L73A allows for a mandated pause but this regulation stops short of that and says "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit" (emphasis mine).

This flexibility legitimizes sharp practice since while the pause by third hand is optional the regulation directs that "no inference can be ... taken from such a pause".

This allows a player to attempt to vary tempo in order to deceive declarer with complete protection.

Only if declarer tries to exploit RHO by playing fast from dummy.