[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-November-25, 00:42, said:

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

So you're saying that they have to think to avoid blunders in bridge?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2015-November-25, 10:04, said:

So you're saying that they have to think to avoid blunders in bridge?

No.

[blackshoe]

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.

That's just hogwash.

[barmar]

One law says you can't play vary your tempo to disconcert an opponent. Another law says that you can't mislead an opponent by varying tempo without a demonstrable bridge reason. And finally there's a law that says you should try to maintain a steady tempo.

The question this thread raises is where does "playing quickly for the purpose of surprising or confusing an opponent" fit into this? Lamford appears to suggest that since confusing isn't the same as disconcerting, it's allowed -- it's a "demonstrable bridge reason".

On the other hand, lamford also brings up the issue of a player forgetting what has happened when an opponent goes into the tank. If the tanker had a valid bridge reason, we don't have any sympathy for the forgetter, right? Why should the reason for the tank affect whether an opponent is expected to remember what happened before?

[barmar]

Also, 73F just says that a player is protected against drawing a "false inference" from an action by an opponent with no demonstrable bridge reason. Forgetting the earlier play is not a false inference, it's just a mental lapse.

But there's still the law that says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." Playing extra quickly for the "duck season" reason, or going into the tank for a Sominex Coup, seems to violate this. But the only legal rectification for these violations would be a PP for the perpetrator, not a score adjustment.

How about this? 73D2 says you can't try to mislead an opponent by haste or hesitancy of a play. Could leading a club really quickly while you seem to be in the midst of drawing spades count as "misleading" the opponent?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-November-25, 14:45, said:

Also, 73F just says that a player is protected against drawing a "false inference" from an action by an opponent with no demonstrable bridge reason. Forgetting the earlier play is not a false inference, it's just a mental lapse.

But there's still the law that says "players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." Playing extra quickly for the "duck season" reason, or going into the tank for a Sominex Coup, seems to violate this. But the only legal rectification for these violations would be a PP for the perpetrator, not a score adjustment.

How about this? 73D2 says you can't try to mislead an opponent by haste or hesitancy of a play. Could leading a club really quickly while you seem to be in the midst of drawing spades count as "misleading" the opponent?

There are plenty of hands that are played very quickly, and I have never seen a ruling for unduly fast play, and there is none in the EBU appeal booklets. That does not mean there cannot be, but the declarer did not "vary his tempo" when leading the queen of clubs. He had also led the ace of spades and king of spades in quick succession. The law does not say "vary his tempo in comparison with other hands he has played", and this would indeed be nonsense, or, should I say, hogwash. Some hands will offer a choice of lines. This one did not, as the colour coup against the partially-sighted opponent was the only plausible line; even ♦QJ tight was no good because of the blockage, as SB immediately realised. In comparison, therefore, with hands where there is nothing to the play, which he also played quickly, SB did not vary his tempo.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-November-25, 14:32, said:

On the other hand, lamford also brings up the issue of a player forgetting what has happened when an opponent goes into the tank.

My English comprehension is not up to standard, so I spend a lot of time futilely searching for the other hand.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-November-25, 20:12, said:

My English comprehension is not up to standard, so I spend a lot of time futilely searching for the other hand.

Heh. Wait until you meet a Motie: "On the gripping hand…"

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2015-November-25, 10:04, said:

So you're saying that they have to think to avoid blunders in bridge?

This doesn't seem to work for me - I still make blunders even when I think.....

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I am mistaken but I seem to recall one of Meckwell writing something a while back about the importance of playing quickly in certain situations to try and get a tell at the critical point. Noone seems to take any issue with that though. I think that if you penalise one tactic you need to penalise the other too. Either it is ok to play more quickly than usual to gain an advantage or not. It should not matter whether it is SB or Meckstroth calling the cards.

[barmar]

I think I recall a little bit of controversy over that suggestion.

Bridge literature is full of suggestions to "duck smoothly" to avoid giving away the position. But I've always interpreted "smoothly" to mean "in normal tempo", not significantly faster than normal.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2015-November-26, 02:20, said:

This doesn't seem to work for me - I still make blunders even especially when I think.....

FYP, so that it applies to me.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2015-November-26, 10:25, said:

I think I recall a little bit of controversy over that suggestion.

Bridge literature is full of suggestions to "duck smoothly" to avoid giving away the position. But I've always interpreted "smoothly" to mean "in normal tempo", not significantly faster than normal.

Should be no controversy; your interpretation is the interpretation.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2015-November-26, 10:20, said:

Perhaps I am mistaken but I seem to recall one of Meckwell writing something a while back about the importance of playing quickly in certain situations to try and get a tell at the critical point. Noone seems to take any issue with that though. I think that if you penalise one tactic you need to penalise the other too. Either it is ok to play more quickly than usual to gain an advantage or not. It should not matter whether it is SB or Meckstroth calling the cards.

It was in the Rodwell Files, and it was controversial, as barmar recalls.

I felt a bit queasy when I read it.,

[blackshoe]

I agree with those who dislike Mr. Rodwell's suggestion, and with Zel's "penalize one, you should also penalize the other".

[Phil]

I can play very quickly and some people think I am violating the rules.

I can play very slowly and other people also think I am violating the rules.

What if I play at even tempo and I induce a mistake by an opponent also trying to play at the same tempo?

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2015-November-26, 14:01, said:

I can play very quickly and some people think I am violating the rules.

I can play very slowly and other people also think I am violating the rules.

What if I play at even tempo and I induce a mistake by an opponent also trying to play at the same tempo?

If you are playing at what most people consider normal tempo, and your opponent is doing the same, and your opponent makes a mistake, I don't think anyone should entertain the thought that you have induced him to do so.

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2015-November-26, 10:20, said:

Perhaps I am mistaken but I seem to recall one of Meckwell writing something a while back about the importance of playing quickly in certain situations to try and get a tell at the critical point. Noone seems to take any issue with that though. I think that if you penalise one tactic you need to penalise the other too. Either it is ok to play more quickly than usual to gain an advantage or not. It should not matter whether it is SB or Meckstroth calling the cards.

I think there is a difference between the two. In the case given in this thread I would feel on firm ground ruling against SB, because to play extra-quickly in the hope that an opponent will think you've played a different card seems like a clear violation of 73D2. Playing extra-fast so that your opponent has to think when it's his turn, not yours, isn't covered by that law. I suppose you could get it under 73D1 and 23, but it feels more tenuous. I do think it is sharp practice, and wouldn't do it myself, but there's no reason why Rodwell (or anyone else) should be expected to share my opinion.

What makes the case here more interesting to me is that, as Lamford points out, by a strict reading of the laws the TD's powers to "designate otherwise" do not extend to penalty cards arising from a revoke. I wonder whether this is really what the writers intended.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-November-26, 20:17, said:

If you are playing at what most people consider normal tempo, and your opponent is doing the same, and your opponent makes a mistake, I don't think anyone should entertain the thought that you have induced him to do so.

Exactly. And this is what his thread started about.. You play the ♠A... the ♠K... the ♣Q in a steady tempo. If LHO has a lapse in concentration and follows to the 'third round of trumps' on autopilot, he will revoke and you will make your contract. It is a big 'if', but it is a legitimate 'if'. The tempo of the play doesn't belong in the discussion of this coup.

The bottom line is simply that you can play the cards in the order that you want to (as long as you don't revoke) and if you want to play ♠A-♠K-♣Q, nobody can stop you, not even if your aim is to induce a revoke.

Rik

[szgyula]

Trinidad, on 2015-November-27, 04:02, said:

Exactly. And this is what his thread started about.. You play the ♠A... the ♠K... the ♣Q in a steady tempo. If LHO has a lapse in concentration and follows to the 'third round of trumps' on autopilot, he will revoke and you will make your contract. It is a big 'if', but it is a legitimate 'if'. The tempo of the play doesn't belong in the discussion of this coup.

The bottom line is simply that you can play the cards in the order that you want to (as long as you don't revoke) and if you want to play ♠A-♠K-♣Q, nobody can stop you, not even if your aim is to induce a revoke.

Rik

I think the issue is quite simple here: You can try to fool the opponents using legal means. E.g. You have AQxxx in hand, Jxxxx in dummy. The fact that you have 5 in you hand is common knowledge from the auction. The location of the A is not know. LHO has Kx. You play the Q. Here you clearly try to fool the opponent. If RHO has the A, it is bad to play the K. LHO may guess wrong. My partner also did something like this once: Dummy was AQJxx, declarer had 5 cards. My partner (LHO) played x from Kx. Declarer was fooled, did not believe my partner did this from Kx, played A, hoping for unprotected K at RHO.

Here, this is slightly worse. Here, you try to induce a revoke. This is your clear intention. Is this legal? Is it ethical? Can you slightly change the tempo to make the mistake easier to make? I think this is a grey area. Probably unethical and I would never do this. Would I be able to prove intent? No.