[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jan 23 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

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.

That is not what the text you are quoting is saying.

[jdonn]

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.

Yes, IF declarer did not pause at trick 1. I think this system is ideal. Declarer doesn't have to pause on a very easy hand or trick if he doesn't want to, but if he doesn't then it's at his own risk. Wtp?

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Jan 22 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

That is not what the text you are quoting is saying.

Sorry - I didn't mean to suggest that it was. The sentence "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." was my opinion, not an attempt to summarise the EBU's non-regulation.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Jan 22 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

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.

As I said in a later post, it isn't a regulation, so it has no bearing on what you or your partner is allowed to do.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 23 2009, 10:31 AM, said:

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.

Yes, IF declarer did not pause at trick 1. I think this system is ideal. Declarer doesn't have to pause on a very easy hand or trick if he doesn't want to, but if he doesn't then it's at his own risk. Wtp?

The problem is that in most places as far as I am aware there is no regulation that says what you are saying.

The laws specifically allow for such a regulation - a mandatory pause at trick one (by declarer and/or third hand). Therefore the omission of said regulation suggests rather strongly that the regulators do not want such a mandatory pause and further that any pause is at the risk of the player who pauses.

Perhaps I am wrong. Is there a WBF regulation that mandates this trick one pause? Is there an ACBL regulation that mandates this trick one pause?

As far as I am aware I have never played under a set of regulations that mandate such a pause.

[jdonn]

Wayne, as far as I can tell you are arguing with either the exact opposite of what I am saying, or something different altogether. I thought the discussion was about a regulation that says approximately: IF declarer does not pause at trick 1, THEN any information from a pause by third hand is authorized information for the opening leader. What does that have to do some other potential regulation that would mandate declarer or third hand pause at trick 1? Existance of that regulation would negate the need for the one under discussion in any case.

To clarify, I agree such a pause is not required, but that is the whole point! It is simply encouraged by putting declarer at some risk of the defenders transmitting more information if declarer doesn't pause. As I said before, I think that is an ideal regulation (if it's allowed, I haven't considered gnasher's posts that it is not allowed because I am simply more interested in this discussion.) That way declarer has incentive to pause at trick 1, but if he doesn't do so then the defenders won't be harmed. So if the hand is very easy and declarer knows the defense can't make a difference but he doesn't want to claim yet, he can simply play without actually breaking a rule, but otherwise he has good reason to pause and give the defenders time to consider the hand.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 24 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

Wayne, as far as I can tell you are arguing with either the exact opposite of what I am saying, or something different altogether. I thought the discussion was about a regulation that says approximately: IF declarer does not pause at trick 1, THEN any information from a pause by third hand is authorized information for the opening leader. What does that have to do some other potential regulation that would mandate declarer or third hand pause at trick 1? Existance of that regulation would negate the need for the one under discussion in any case.

To clarify, I agree such a pause is not required, but that is the whole point! It is simply encouraged by putting declarer at some risk of the defenders transmitting more information if declarer doesn't pause. As I said before, I think that is an ideal regulation (if it's allowed, I haven't considered gnasher's posts that it is not allowed because I am simply more interested in this discussion.) That way declarer has incentive to pause at trick 1, but if he doesn't do so then the defenders won't be harmed. So if the hand is very easy and declarer knows the defense can't make a difference but he doesn't want to claim yet, he can simply play without actually breaking a rule, but otherwise he has good reason to pause and give the defenders time to consider the hand.

It has been suggested that the white book is not a book of regulations.

[jdonn]

Ok, that's just a guide book for directors I think, right? So in practice it amounts to the same thing as long as the director is following that guideline.

If that goes against what is actually allowed by law or regulation, it wouldn't be the first time I have seen an instance like that. In the ACBL I have seen a guidebook for directors that tells them to instruct players to ignore UI and simply bid what they would otherwise have bid, which is of course the wrong guideline (they should choose an LA not suggested etc. etc.)

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jan 24 2009, 11:28 AM, said:

Ok, that's just a guide book for directors I think, right? So in practice it amounts to the same thing as long as the director is following that guideline.

If that goes against what is actually allowed by law or regulation, it wouldn't be the first time I have seen an instance like that. In the ACBL I have seen a guidebook for directors that tells them to instruct players to ignore UI and simply bid what they would otherwise have bid, which is of course the wrong guideline (they should choose an LA not suggested etc. etc.)

The white book apparently says:

QUOTE (EBU White Book)

Quote

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.

I contend this is silly.

The opening post was considering the whether an opening lead of the ace with an attitude signal caused ethical problems. An in tempo encouraging attitude means I have the king but a slow encourage says I have the queen.

Lets say I go further and agree with my partner that this is exactly what we will do. Apparently the EBU White Book says that my pause-encourage will not convey any unauthorised information.

The White Book does not appear to mandate a pause so presummably I am also free to play without pause without conveying Unauthorized Information.

The only sensible approaches in my opinion are:

1. For a pause at any trick including trick one to be subject to normal Unauthorized Information Laws and Regulations or

2. For a pause at trick one to be mandatory.

By default if the regulators do not mandate a pause then normal Unauthorized Information Laws and Regulations apply.

[jdonn]

I don't know why you keep mentioning defenders being able to make agreements about hesitations. The defenders can not do what you suggest because declarer can prevent it by pausing at trick 1.

However there is no reason to force declarer to pause at trick 1 since that simply wastes time on hands where he knows the defense won't make a difference. That would be impractical.

That is very simple. There is nothing for you to find silly.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jan 23 2009, 11:28 PM, said:

Ok, that's just a guide book for directors I think, right? So in practice it amounts to the same thing as long as the director is following that guideline.

If the rules say "You can't do X", you shouldn't do it, even if you know you won't be penalised for it.

Suppose that you are playing in a bridge club where the director, who likes an easy life, rarely or never adjusts a score under the laws about unauthorised information, and where there is no effective appeals procedure. Your partner alerts something that you thought was natural. You're sure that you can get away with taking advantage of the alert. Would you?

If not, tell me why this situation is different.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-January-24, 03:53

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Jan 24 2009, 08:45 AM, said:

QUOTE (EBU White Book)

Quote

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.

I contend this is silly.

I agree, except that if 3rd hand says "If declarer plays quickly from dummy, I often/always pause to think about the hand", he should usually be believed.

Also, I agree with the EBU that any claim that declarer has been misled by 3rd hand's pause should be treated with scepticism.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jan 24 2009, 04:41 AM, said:

If not, tell me why this situation is different.

Because the EBU White Book says so. I don't know why you keep trying to convince me that its advice is illegal. I could honestly not care less, it's in a guide issued by the EBU so there is a reasonable basis to follow it. If you believe it offers directors illegal advice then blame the authors, write a letter to your prime minister, start a petition, I don't care.

[JLOL]

I think that if RHO plays slow after declarer plays insta then there is no UI, but if RHO plays insta after declarer plays insta that is UI.

[gnasher]

JLOL, on Jan 24 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

I think that if RHO plays slow after declarer plays insta then there is no UI, but if RHO plays insta after declarer plays insta that is UI.

There's no UI if the defender always plays quickly in this situation, or if he always plays slowly. There's only UI if he varies his tempo.