[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-November-23, 05:32, said:

Because you thought the BIT with three small spades (when the ♠J was led) in another thread was both legally and morally correct. That was, I presume, because you disagreed (as do I) with the White Book as to what constitutes a demonstrable bridge reason.

When someone includes "of course" in a statement, they are often on weak ground, and I do not agree that there is any law which makes it illegal to increase your tempo in the the hope of inducing a mistake. 74D7 prevents you varying your tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. None of the definitions I have found of "disconcerting" in the dictionary includes "inducing a mistake". I have never encountered a ruling for unduly fast play and 73D1 also makes it clear that it is not always required to maintain an unvarying manner. Fast play cannot (in theory) work to the benefit of your side, as there is no requirement on the opponent to play at the same speed, as mgoetze points out, so the requirement to be particularly careful does not apply.

Unless I am misinterpreting your post because I could not quite piece together the double negative.

That you have never encountered a ruling for unduly fast play does not mean that such rulings should not be made. Your last sentence is a bit disingenuous, since I'm sure you know that fast play can (and does) indeed work to the benefit of your side.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-November-23, 05:32, said:

I do not agree that there is any law which makes it illegal to increase your tempo in the the hope of inducing a mistake. 74D7 prevents you varying your tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

73D1 says you're supposed to maintain an unvarying tempo. While there can be bridge reasons for playing slower than normal (you're allowed to think when you have something to think about), can there really be a bridge reason for playing faster than normal?

This is only a "should", so you wouldn't normally receive a PP for violating it. But it's still a violation of proper procedure, and it seems that the opponents should be protected from damage by it.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2015-November-23, 09:40, said:

73D1 says you're supposed to maintain an unvarying tempo. While there can be bridge reasons for playing slower than normal (you're allowed to think when you have something to think about), can there really be a bridge reason for playing faster than normal?

I was once, as vugraph operator, asked by a TD which pair carried the blame for the table taking more than the allotted time. In my estimation, EW was 150% to blame and NS -50%, as the NS pair had increased their tempo considerably in order to attempt to finish on time (and their normal tempo would have sufficed to do so comfortably). Presumably you think they should not have done so?

[pran]

mgoetze, on 2015-November-23, 10:01, said:

I was once, as vugraph operator, asked by a TD which pair carried the blame for the table taking more than the allotted time. In my estimation, EW was 150% to blame and NS -50%, as the NS pair had increased their tempo considerably in order to attempt to finish on time (and their normal tempo would have sufficed to do so comfortably). Presumably you think they should not have done so?

Certainly not!
Their purpose was apparently not to disconcert their opponents but to "save their bacon". (They probably could not during their opponents' slow play know what was needed to finish on time.)

It would have been perfectly legal to maintain their own normal speed and in case let their opponents take the full penalty for late play.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-November-23, 09:40, said:

can there really be a bridge reason for playing faster than normal?

Of course. To induce a defensive error from an opponent who mistakenly plays at the same speed.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-November-24, 09:47, said:

Of course. To induce a defensive error from an opponent who mistakenly plays at the same speed.

I guess we have different ideas of what constitutes a "bridge reason". Mannerisms and tempo are not part of the game.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2015-November-23, 05:32, said:

74D7 prevents you varying your tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. None of the definitions I have found of "disconcerting" in the dictionary includes "inducing a mistake".

Wiktionary said:

disconcert verb (transitive)

• To upset the composure of.
• To bring into confusion.
• To frustrate, make go wrong.

"Make go wrong" is similar to "Induce a mistake". Even if you reject that definition, however, would you accept that a disconcerted person is more likely to err?

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-November-24, 10:36, said:

"Make go wrong" is similar to "Inducing a mistake". Even if you reject that definition, however, would you accept that a disconcerted person tends to be error-prone?

That may be true, but the pertinent question is whether an error-prone person is disconcerted.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2015-November-24, 10:36, said:

"Make go wrong" is similar to "Inducing a mistake". Even if you reject that definition, however, would you accept that a disconcerted person tends to be error-prone?

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2015-November-24, 10:43, said:

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

I think that variations in tempo can disconcert an opponent. Most players comply with the law by trying to play in tempo (also to avoid giving UI to partner). They use partner's and opponents' thinking time, as well as their own. Of course, If your RHO plays unexpectedly quickly, then he gives you less time to think than normal, and makes a mistake by you more likely.

[mycroft]

Certainly playing slower-than-lightning until you make the lightning key play, hoping either for a lightning mistake or a pause you can use to determine holdings, seems improper.

Calling the TD over the "pause" when it turns out that "he doesn't have his hitch" is definitely improper.

Does it happen? Yes. Do those who do it argue that "he should have been prepared for this play, so I'm in my rights"? Of course. Do I want one as my partner? I'm sure you have the answer to that question as well.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2015-November-24, 10:43, said:

Certainly, whether declarer plays slowly or quickly, the defender is more likely to make a mistake. There is a difference however. If Andy (I won't give any surname) plays slowly, the opponents may fall asleep and forget what has gone. Playing slowly for this purpose with no other bridge reason is an infraction. Playing quickly is different. The opponents do not have to play at any different speed, and the fact that they often do is their own lookout. They should not be disconcerted in the slightest.

Paul, do you not remember a teammate who was induced to make all kinds of mistakes when declarer played quickly?

[mycroft]

Thanks for the reminder. I know that at least once a year I give the advice to someone who is disturbed at playing with particular people (whether they just play fast, or act really silly at the table and distract, or give off the "I know what's going on, surely either you can claim, or you're an idiot" vibe, or whatever) "do not fall into their trap. Whether they're doing it to intice you into playing their game (which they play much better than you) or are just that kind of person, changing your game to meet them is easy to do, and fatal. Take your usual time, and play your normal game."

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-24, 16:01, said:

Paul, do you not remember a teammate who was induced to make all kinds of mistakes when declarer played quickly?

Not specifically. Many teammates in the past have stated that they played too quickly because declarer did, but that is their fault.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2015-November-24, 18:43, said:

Not specifically. Many teammates in the past have stated that they played too quickly because declarer did, but that is their fault.

You are being too hard on these players.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2015-November-24, 18:43, said:

Many teammates in the past have stated that they played too quickly because declarer did, but that is their fault.

Indeed, it is their fault; and they would do well to merely state that they played too quickly, and not attribute their mistakes to others.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-November-25, 00:36, said:

Indeed, it is their fault; and they would do well to merely state that they played too quickly, and not attribute their mistakes to others.

True, but players who lack poise and confidence are easily influenced by fast play. Many must make a conscious effort on each hand.

[wank]

i agree with lamford - you can't make anyone play quickly by doing so yourself.

as for this colour coup business, if you have some variety of disability and partake in a game/sport with those who are not, you should expect to be handicapped and perforce on occasion lose. what next? bonus matchpoints if you bring along an IQ test certificate to show you're not as clever as FrancisHinden or DBurn?

[Trinidad]

wank, on 2015-November-25, 00:43, said:

i agree with lamford - you can't make anyone play quickly by doing so yourself.

as for this colour coup business, if you have some variety of disability and partake in a game/sport with those who are not, you should expect to be handicapped and perforce on occasion lose. what next? bonus matchpoints if you bring along an IQ test certificate to show you're not as clever as FrancisHinden or DBurn?

That depends on the purpose of the game.

If the purpose of the game is to determine who is the best player (as in serious bridge competitions) then I fully agree with you.
If the purpose of the game is to have a fun time together and winning is not important then taking advantage of someone's handicap is a poor choice.

Rik

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-November-25, 03:50, said:

That depends on the purpose of the game.

If the purpose of the game is to determine who is the best player (as in serious bridge competitions) then I fully agree with you.
If the purpose of the game is to have a fun time together and winning is not important then taking advantage of someone's handicap is a poor choice.

Rik

For this forum, we know the purpose of the game from Law 72A:
"The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws."

So, if you have four for dinner and bridge, your second purpose is the one. In a competitive event, the first. But one man's ethical standards might be another man's Alcatraz Coup.