[NickRW]

zenko, on Jul 15 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

Having said that I am very sceptical that any the problem can be solved with additional layers of regulations.

Maybe you're right. But there can be guidance for TDs that a 2 or 3 seconds in a competitive auction is reasonable thinking time. Certainly too many players have got the idea from somewhere that this sort of 'pause' is something that they can take advantage of. I call it gamesmanship and they must have been allowed to get away with it or they wouldn't be doing it.

Nick

[mycroft]

2 or 3 seconds *is* reasonable thinking time. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

But the problem is that in all these other occasions, partner (yours, mine, theirs) *didn't* take the time. The pass/bid/double hit the table so fast I didn't get a chance to pull my hand away from *my* call. So, clearly there's something to think about with *this* hand.

Get your newbie player into the habit, right away, of thinking two to three seconds after every competitive call - frankly, before it's her turn to call in *all* situations. Two things then happen:
- it's not obvious when she needed to think about this one, and
- on occasion, she might think a bit about the "obvious" calls, and find they are neither obvious or correct.
both of which will improve her, and your game, and limit the number of UI grumbles. And those that do get to find out that you know, the rules read the right way.

[NickRW]

mycroft, on Jul 15 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

2 or 3 seconds *is* reasonable thinking time. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

But the problem is that in all these other occasions, partner (yours, mine, theirs) *didn't* take the time. The pass/bid/double hit the table so fast I didn't get a chance to pull my hand away from *my* call. So, clearly there's something to think about with *this* hand.

Get your newbie player into the habit, right away, of thinking two to three seconds after every competitive call - frankly, before it's her turn to call in *all* situations. Two things then happen:
- it's not obvious when she needed to think about this one, and
- on occasion, she might think a bit about the "obvious" calls, and find they are neither obvious or correct.
both of which will improve her, and your game, and limit the number of UI grumbles. And those that do get to find out that you know, the rules read the right way.

Sorry, but to my mind there is something wrong minded about regulations that say that on the one hand partner has taken only a reasonable amount of time to think - yet we are going to constrain that person's partner anyway.

I just don't want to be in that environment - let alone pay for it. Nor train partners into having to alter their behaviour to suit someone's poor idea of rules.

Nick

[blackshoe]

The rule is that "it is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner" (Law 73D). I don't think this is a poor rule, or a poor idea, or a poor idea of a rule.

[pran]

NickRW, on Jul 15 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

mycroft, on Jul 15 2010, 07:32 PM, said:

2 or 3 seconds *is* reasonable thinking time.  I know it, you know it, we all know it.

But the problem is that in all these other occasions, partner (yours, mine, theirs) *didn't* take the time.  The pass/bid/double hit the table so fast I didn't get a chance to pull my hand away from *my* call.  So, clearly there's something to think about with *this* hand. 

Get your newbie player into the habit, right away, of thinking two to three seconds after every competitive call - frankly, before it's her turn to call in *all* situations.  Two things then happen:
- it's not obvious when she needed to think about this one, and
- on occasion, she might think a bit about the "obvious" calls, and find they are neither obvious or correct.
both of which will improve her, and your game, and limit the number of UI grumbles.  And those that do get to find out that you know, the rules read the right way.

Sorry, but to my mind there is something wrong minded about regulations that say that on the one hand partner has taken only a reasonable amount of time to think - yet we are going to constrain that person's partner anyway.

I just don't want to be in that environment - let alone pay for it. Nor train partners into having to alter their behaviour to suit someone's poor idea of rules.

Nick

Consider a competitive auction with your side fighting up to 4♥ and your opponents fighting up to 4♠ (or say 5♦) after which your partner slams the DOUBLE on the table within a split second.

Is there any hand with which you now would ever consider bidding 5♥?

And do you agree that the reason for this is mainly your partner's double with no pause at all?

A fast call can easily convey as much UI as a hesitation.

[NickRW]

pran, on Jul 15 2010, 10:53 PM, said:

Consider a competitive auction with your side fighting up to 4♥ and your opponents fighting up to 4♠ (or say 5♦) after which your partner slams the DOUBLE on the table within a split second.

Is there any hand with which you now would ever consider bidding 5♥?

And do you agree that the reason for this is mainly your partner's double with no pause at all?

A fast call can easily convey as much UI as a hesitation.

Put it this way, if I felt that either partner's (or indeed the opponents) speed of call or other body language was in any way a reliable indicator of what they held, then I just might feel that UI was a potential problem. But I don't. Perhaps I play with too many monkeys - whatever. In any event I end up feeling constrained when I don't have the UI that someone else just happens to think I might have. Any I most vigorously object to this. I dread being in that situation as a player and I absolutely loathe getting TD calls about it.

[blackshoe]

Well, this double is a fast call with considerable emphasis - so the tempo isn't the only problem.