[dake50]

Anyone else witnessing 3rd-hand to A-lead immediate come-on with K; break tempo come-on if Q?
Opponents may choose A from AK, but must 'pay the piper' on unsupported A-leads getting 'wild ass guess' signal. Except I'm seeing BIT solving A-lead signal problem much as odd-even signals BIT if no 'right' parity card solved their problem.

[MFA]

Have seen most things regarding slow signals, but this doesn't seem to me as a problem in particular.
If you are thinking T1, there should be a pause when dummy hits, which should inhibit this problem.

[Phil]

MFA, on Jan 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Have seen most things regarding slow signals, but this doesn't seem to me as a problem in particular.
If you are thinking T1, there should be a pause when dummy hits, which should inhibit this problem.

Agree. If Declarer shotguns T1 from dummy, BIT is greatly mitigated IMO.

[Cascade]

Phil, on Jan 21 2009, 05:30 AM, said:

MFA, on Jan 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Have seen most things regarding slow signals, but this doesn't seem to me as a problem in particular.
If you are thinking T1, there should be a pause when dummy hits, which should inhibit this problem.

Agree. If Declarer shotguns T1 from dummy, BIT is greatly mitigated IMO.

I completely disagree with this.

If you break tempo then you break tempo and the consequences are your own. You can't put the blame on someone else.

The laws of bridge specifically permit regulators to mandate a trick one pause. As far as I am aware there are no bridge organizations that so mandate. I have certainly never played in a tournament where there is a regulation mandating a trick one pause.

If there is no mandate for a trick one pause then by default normal tempo is what is expected and any break in tempo has normal unauthorized infomation consequences.

[Cascade]

Additionally I am fairly sure that there has been at least one defensive trick one pause in a world championship (or similar) that generated an appeal and the side that broke tempo was ruled against.

[qwery_hi]

Cascade, on Jan 20 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

Phil, on Jan 21 2009, 05:30 AM, said:

MFA, on Jan 20 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

Have seen most things regarding slow signals, but this doesn't seem to me as a problem in particular.
If you are thinking T1, there should be a pause when dummy hits, which should inhibit this problem.

Agree. If Declarer shotguns T1 from dummy, BIT is greatly mitigated IMO.

I completely disagree with this.

If you break tempo then you break tempo and the consequences are your own. You can't put the blame on someone else.

The laws of bridge specifically permit regulators to mandate a trick one pause. As far as I am aware there are no bridge organizations that so mandate. I have certainly never played in a tournament where there is a regulation mandating a trick one pause.

If there is no mandate for a trick one pause then by default normal tempo is what is expected and any break in tempo has normal unauthorized infomation consequences.

If I remember right the 2008 Cavendish mandated a 10(or15) s pause at T1 by declarer.

[OleBerg]

I do not have any experience in how such things are handled internationally, but in Denmark there is precedence for this:

If declarer doesn't take a ten seconds pause at T1, 3.rd hand is allowed to pause for ten seconds without "breaking tempo".

Seems quite sensible to me.

[paulg]

Neither the EBU nor SBU mandate pauses at trick one.

The EBU, in its TD guide, says

EBU White Book said:

If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary.

Of course a pause is not defined, but I seem to recall that more than 10-15 seconds becomes a break in tempo.

The SBU tends to follow the EBU guidelines in this regard.

Paul

[Cascade]

cardsharp, on Jan 22 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

Neither the EBU nor SBU mandate pauses at trick one.

The EBU, in its TD guide, says

EBU White Book said:

If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary.

Of course a pause is not defined, but I seem to recall that more than 10-15 seconds becomes a break in tempo.

The SBU tends to follow the EBU guidelines in this regard.

Paul

This is silly of course.

Unauthorized Information does not go away because some rule says it does not exist.

If I am your partner and you pause at trick one and I can deduce something from that pause then I have Unauthorized Information even if there is a regulation saying that I don't. It would be wrong for me to act on the deduction that I made from your break in tempo.

[MFA]

Cascade, on Jan 21 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 22 2009, 02:07 AM, said:

Neither the EBU nor SBU mandate pauses at trick one.

The EBU, in its TD guide, says

EBU White Book said:

If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary.

Of course a pause is not defined, but I seem to recall that more than 10-15 seconds becomes a break in tempo.

The SBU tends to follow the EBU guidelines in this regard.

Paul

This is silly of course.

Unauthorized Information does not go away because some rule says it does not exist.

If I am your partner and you pause at trick one and I can deduce something from that pause then I have Unauthorized Information even if there is a regulation saying that I don't. It would be wrong for me to act on the deduction that I made from your break in tempo.

When declarer shotguns T1, a good and ethical player who sees that there might potentially be a defensive problem would typically take his time whether or not he has solved his problem immediately.

So his partner won't know.

The regulations supports such practice, which is not silly at all. Otherwise declarer would have a huge advantage by shotgunning and thus requirering the defense to solve its problem in tempo.

[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jan 21 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

This is silly of course.

Unauthorized Information does not go away because some rule says it does not exist.

Let's say you're to the right of the dealer, and in the middle of a contract you lead a heart. Declarer ruffs and your partner plays the deuce. Before Declarer plays from dummy, he says "Oh wait, I do have a heart" and plays one (the infamous Alcatraz Coup). Now your partner plays the nine. The fact that your partner has the deuce of hearts is Authorized info to you.

They're saying a delay is authorized information if declarer shotguns. Most directors I know would also play that

1♠ P 3♣(1) P(2)
3♦(3)

(1) Stop card played.
(2) Lightning fast
(3) Took about 8 seconds

The 8 second pause was Authorized Information for partner.

[jdonn]

Cascade, on Jan 21 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Unauthorized Information does not go away because some rule says it does not exist.

The entire concept of unauthorized information is defined by the rules. If the rule says information is authorized in a certain situation, it is. It's not like the rule is breaking the law of gravity, it is just noting an exception to a different rule.

So I guess you're right that unauthorized information does not go away because a rule says it does. The information is still there, it is simply not unauthorized any more.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 22 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 21 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Unauthorized Information does not go away because some rule says it does not exist.

The entire concept of unauthorized information is defined by the rules. If the rule says information is authorized in a certain situation, it is. It's not like the rule is breaking the law of gravity, it is just noting an exception to a different rule.

So I guess you're right that unauthorized information does not go away because a rule says it does. The information is still there, it is simply not unauthorized any more.

So basically this rule says that it is legal to transmit information to your partner by your tempo.

A delay is not mandated so I can play quickly in some situations and take my time in others.

I doubt that this is the intention of the regulation but it is what will happen if we consider that a delay conveys no information.

[Phil]

Wayne, in practice directors are very critical toward declarers that think for a millisecond, play from dummy, and then whine about the UI that RHO is creating since he's actually thinking.

Of course if I (as 3rd chair) really don't have a problem with the trick in question, I'll face down the card, and mention that I'm thinking about the entire hand.

At least thats my experience over here. I don't know what they do in your neck of the woods.

[orlam]

Cascade, on Jan 22 2009, 12:02 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 22 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jan 21 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Unauthorized Information does not go away because some rule says it does not exist.

The entire concept of unauthorized information is defined by the rules. If the rule says information is authorized in a certain situation, it is. It's not like the rule is breaking the law of gravity, it is just noting an exception to a different rule.

So I guess you're right that unauthorized information does not go away because a rule says it does. The information is still there, it is simply not unauthorized any more.

So basically this rule says that it is legal to transmit information to your partner by your tempo.

A delay is not mandated so I can play quickly in some situations and take my time in others.

I doubt that this is the intention of the regulation but it is what will happen if we consider that a delay conveys no information.

Only if declarer plays quickly to trick one? Maybe what will happen is that declarers don't play quickly at trick one?

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jan 22 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

The entire concept of unauthorized information is defined by the rules. If the rule says information is authorized in a certain situation, it is. It's not like the rule is breaking the law of gravity, it is just noting an exception to a different rule.

So I guess you're right that unauthorized information does not go away because a rule says it does. The information is still there, it is simply not unauthorized any more.

There are two categories of rules, laws and regulations. A regulation can't override the Laws unless the Laws allow such an override.

In this case, the relevant Law starts: "A player may use information in the auction or play if ... it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized ..." That seems pretty clear.

However, it goes on to say "... (but see B1 following)". "B1" is the part of the same Law that says that information from partner's hesitations is unauthorised. That seems to make it all rather less clear.

[gnasher]

cardsharp, on Jan 21 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

Neither the EBU nor SBU mandate pauses at trick one.

The EBU, in its TD guide, says

EBU White Book said:

If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary.

The EBU TD's Guide (the "White Book") does not contain regulations, but guidelines for directors about how to apply the laws and regulations. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the EBU's regulations (the "Orange Book") on this subject. Hence, whatever it may say in the White Book, partner's hesitation at trick one does convey unauthorised information, and does constrain your actions. Your obligation to play by the rules exists regardless of whether the TD is going to enforce them.

The section that Paul quotes continues

Quote

The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of his holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy.

I think the point is that when third hand thinks at trick one, he may well be thinking about the entire hand, or simply pausing so as to restore the normal tempo of the game, so you may not be able to infer much from the pause. However, if your partner never does this, then when he thinks at trick one you *know* that he's thinking about trick one, and this is information is unathorised.

[sireenb]

The best article I read about this appears in the book 'For Experts Only' by Pamela and Matthew Granvotter. The last Chapter is 'Ethics For Experts' by Michael Rosenberg addresses the issue that huddles, non-huddles, slow cards and fast cards all create a dilemma in the world of bridge ethics. I strongly recommend reading it.

[Cascade]

Phil, on Jan 22 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Wayne, in practice directors are very critical toward declarers that think for a millisecond, play from dummy, and then whine about the UI that RHO is creating since he's actually thinking.

Of course if I (as 3rd chair) really don't have a problem with the trick in question, I'll face down the card, and mention that I'm thinking about the entire hand.

At least thats my experience over here. I don't know what they do in your neck of the woods.

If this is the case then it seems to me that there ought to be a regulation mandating a trick one pause. The laws specifically allow for that. If the regulators do not so mandate then I think a pause at trick one should be treated like a pause at any other trick.

It is not for the directors to make a regulation where the regulators have chosen not to impose such a regulation.

I doubt that anyone would agree that if my partner makes available to me information other than from the card that is played (and from the bidding) then it is ok for me to take advantage of that information. If a trick one pause conveys such information then it is the pauser that has caused a problem.

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jan 23 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

In this case, the relevant Law starts: "A player may use information in the auction or play if ... it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized ..." That seems pretty clear.

However, it goes on to say "... (but see B1 following)". "B1" is the part of the same Law that says that information from partner's hesitations is unauthorised. That seems to make it all rather less clear.

That is fine but I doubt that the intention of the regulation is that in third seat I can choose to play in tempo or pause and deliberately (or otherwise) use this strategy to convey information to my partner that partner will use to our sides advantage without redress.

If it is then I will have to make an arrange with my partner what a 2 second break means, a five second break, a ten second break etc.