[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-October-08, 09:17, said:

Is there any problem if a player in turn to lead makes his lead while another player still has his last played card visible?

None whatever. I tell him not to do it again, and if he does I give him a DP.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 10:02, said:

None whatever. I tell him not to do it again, and if he does I give him a DP.

Seems dictatorial.

The player has not violated any law. So you by fiat make an instruction that he may have difficulty following since it may be his habit to play to a trick in normal tempo when he has won. And then you think slapping him with a DP for failing to following your instruction (not the law) on what really is a minor matter will solve the (non) problem.

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 20:40, said:

Yes, you are wrong, and it is against the laws to play a trick while another trick is still in progress.

Which law?

Quote

Do you believe that when declarer is running a suit it is acceptable for all of the defenders' plays to remain face-up on the table? This is the consequence of what you are suggesting.

No it is not. The law says that when - at the time - all four cards are played then the players are required to turn their cards face down. There is nothing that suggests because one or more players are tardy in this responsibility that the player on lead is not allowed to lead.

Quote

Law 65A defines when a trick is completed, and Law 66A notes the right to see the cards face-up. You and these other nonsense posters think that it is acceptable to continuously flash your card in a twirling motion in response to another player's repeated requests to see the trick and you think that I am trying to annoy the opponents?

I think that if a player asks you to face a card and he has the right to do that then you face your card so that he can see it. Having done so you can turn it down. If it happens that you have misjudged and he has not seen it, or if occasionally he forgets, and asks to have the card faced again you comply.

However I think having a card faced simply to delay the game, even to delay the game so that you can buy some time to think is not a concept that is written in the laws.

Quote

Why are you posting such crap?

1. Obviously I do not believe it is crap

2. I do believe it is consistent with what is written in the laws

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-October-08, 12:44, said:

Seems dictatorial.

The player has not violated any law. So you by fiat make an instruction that he may have difficulty following since it may be his habit to play to a trick in normal tempo when he has won. And then you think slapping him with a DP for failing to following your instruction (not the law) on what really is a minor matter will solve the (non) problem.

We have a method of playing the game: to play otherwise involves seriously upsetting other people. The fact that there is no Law that explicitly says the way it is played is not relevant: this is not BLML. We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

We have a Law that forbids upsetting other people needlessly: you have a player who upsets other people needlessly and continues to do so when warned.

It is not dictatorial to give such a person a DP: it is normal TD practice.

[blackshoe]

Is there a problem? Possibly. It seems likely to be confusing, at best, to have five cards face up on the table when one is trying to work out the significance of the plays to the last trick. At worst, the leader may turn the wrong card.

Is it "not broke"? I don't believe so, or I wouldn't have started this thread. And if there's a director anywhere whose prime interest is to hand out PPs, he's in the wrong business, and not likely to be in it long.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 13:55, said:

We have a method of playing the game: to play otherwise involves seriously upsetting other people. The fact that there is no Law that explicitly says the way it is played is not relevant: this is not BLML. We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

We have a Law that forbids upsetting other people needlessly: you have a player who upsets other people needlessly and continues to do so when warned.

It is not dictatorial to give such a person a DP: it is normal TD practice.

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

[pran]

I must say that I really do not understand the attitudes of bluejak and blackshoe here, and I do indeed wonder what experiences they can have had with "premature" leads of the kind that is the theme in this thread?

What usually has happened in such situations I have seen is that a player leads in tempo after winning a trick, one of the other two players (excluding dummy) says "hold it" (or words to that effect) and "may I see the last trick please". (Or he just a little bit late just turns his played card face down without any remark at all.)

This does not annoy or embarrass anybody, the players simply face their cards, not uncommonly with a "sorry", and the player who halted the play eventually turns his own card face down, frequently with a "thank you", after which play continues as if no irregularity has occurred.

I have never seen any call for director in such cases and I strongly believe that a player calling the director in a situation like that would be considered infracting Law 74B5 in any environment where I play or conduct!

[blackshoe]

You are apparently applying Law 74B5 not because of the manner in which the TD was called or addressed, but because he was called at all. That is illegal.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2011-October-08, 16:09, said:

I must say that I really do not understand the attitudes of bluejak and blackshoe here, and I do indeed wonder what experiences they can have had with "premature" leads of the kind that is the theme in this thread?

What usually has happened in such situations I have seen is that a player leads in tempo after winning a trick, one of the other two players (excluding dummy) says "hold it" (or words to that effect) and "may I see the last trick please". (Or he just a little bit late just turns his played card face down without any remark at all.)

This does not annoy or embarrass anybody, the players simply face their cards, not uncommonly with a "sorry", and the player who halted the play eventually turns his own card face down, frequently with a "thank you", after which play continues as if no irregularity has occurred.

What you are talking about is done accidentally. Bluejak is discussing penalising a player deliberately, as the rest of your lot are maintaining that since it is (arguably) not specifically prohibited in the laws, it is appropriate to lead early to a trick. Apparently the purpose is to pressure another player into matching your tempo.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-October-08, 15:41, said:

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

Deliberately misquoting me might be fun, but as an argumentative technique it stinks.

No, of course a player who holds the game up unnecessarily is also causing trouble. I have never suggested that any TD rules without finding out the facts. But delaying game is rarely a deliberate tactic: it normally comes from thinking, which is perfectly legal.

If and only if a TD decides that someone's actions amounted to an unnecessary delay of game then he might give a player an instruction: if the player refuses to follow the instruction of course a DP is suitable.

pran, on 2011-October-08, 16:09, said:

I must say that I really do not understand the attitudes of bluejak and blackshoe here, and I do indeed wonder what experiences they can have had with "premature" leads of the kind that is the theme in this thread?

What usually has happened in such situations I have seen is that a player leads in tempo after winning a trick, one of the other two players (excluding dummy) says "hold it" (or words to that effect) and "may I see the last trick please". (Or he just a little bit late just turns his played card face down without any remark at all.)

This does not annoy or embarrass anybody, the players simply face their cards, not uncommonly with a "sorry", and the player who halted the play eventually turns his own card face down, frequently with a "thank you", after which play continues as if no irregularity has occurred.

I have never seen any call for director in such cases and I strongly believe that a player calling the director in a situation like that would be considered infracting Law 74B5 in any environment where I play or conduct!

Of course the suggestions in this thread do not normally happen, pran, why ever you think they happen regularly is beyond me. But the whole idea of these forums is to help people in various situations, some of which might be extremely rare.

So saying you have never seen such a situation helps not at all: suppose next week you are called to a table where a player is not waiting for others to finish looking at a trick before the next one and is upsetting the other players at the table: are you really going to say to yourself "This never happens so I am not going to deal with it?".

Now, you deal with it by giving the player an instruction, which he ignores, and you are recalled: you give him the instruction again, which he ignores, and you are recalled. Are you seriously telling me you would not issue a DP "because this situation has never happened before in your experience"?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-08, 15:30, said:

Is there a problem? Possibly. It seems likely to be confusing, at best, to have five cards face up on the table when one is trying to work out the significance of the plays to the last trick. At worst, the leader may turn the wrong card.

Yes, I too have been thinking that the latter is a real possibility.

Cascade, on 2011-October-08, 15:41, said:

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

No, because asking once should be enough.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 13:55, said:

We have a method of playing the game: to play otherwise involves seriously upsetting other people. The fact that there is no Law that explicitly says the way it is played is not relevant: this is not BLML. We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

We have a Law that forbids upsetting other people needlessly: you have a player who upsets other people needlessly and continues to do so when warned.

It is not dictatorial to give such a person a DP: it is normal TD practice.

Cascade, on 2011-October-08, 15:41, said:

Except that this is two sided. The player who delays the game and plays some other game by repeatedly asking for the cards to be faced also upsets some other players.

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 17:18, said:

Deliberately misquoting me might be fun, but as an argumentative technique it stinks.

I quoted precisely what you wrote.

How is this a misquote?

How is it deliberate?

How does it stink?

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-08, 17:21, said:

No, because asking once should be enough.

Indeed it should.

And showing once should also be enough.

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen why would I need to leave my card face up any longer?

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen and turned my card down why would the other player need to see the card again?

[bluejak]

Quote

Are you suggesting that they too be subject to a DP? Since it is normal TD practice.

Having produced a totally different situation where there was no refusal to follow a TD's instructions I consider this a deliberate misquote. You know perfectly well that a DP is not suitable for thinking and suggesting it is would be pointless if it were not that some people do not check when you quote something and so may be misled by you.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-October-08, 17:37, said:

Indeed it should.

And showing once should also be enough.

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen why would I need to leave my card face up any longer?

If I have shown and can be sure the other player has seen and turned my card down why would the other player need to see the card again?

Some people prefer to see all of the cards while they think about what is going on in the hand. The normal procedure is that someone asks to see the trick, those who have turned their cards over turn them face-up, and then the person who requested to see the cards turns his own card face-down and everyone else does the same. I believe that this procedure is required by the laws, but even if it weren't, what advantage do you see to flashing your card and then turning it back face-down?

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-08, 18:52, said:

Some people prefer to see all of the cards while they think about what is going on in the hand. The normal procedure is that someone asks to see the trick, those who have turned their cards over turn them face-up, and then the person who requested to see the cards turns his own card face-down and everyone else does the same. I believe that this procedure is required by the laws, but even if it weren't, what advantage do you see to flashing your card and then turning it back face-down?

Following the law.

Specifically turning one's card down when four cards have been played to the trick. Not sometime later controlled by someone who has no explicit right to control the tempo of the table.

[blackshoe]

For the record, if someone asks me (legally) to show my already turned card, I turn it back and and leave it up until either he says "thank you" or some such, or turns his own card face down. I'm not saying doing anything else is illegal, I'm saying I think that's an appropriate level of courtesy at the table.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2011-October-10, 20:26
Reason for edit: deleted a comment some posters found offensive.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-08, 16:23, said:

You are apparently applying Law 74B5 not because of the manner in which the TD was called or addressed, but because he was called at all. That is illegal.

No, because the call for the Director is

Law 74B5 said:

summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants.

Added after seeing your last post: Instead of calling the Director I think what you say there is the only acceptable way of handling the situation. And I take the liberty to state that we apparently have identical views on this. Having already led (in turn) to the next trick should not cause any problem and is immaterial here.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-08, 19:31, said:

Wayne, you're carrying your "Secretary Bird" persona too far. If you're really that big a prick at the table, I don't think anyone would enjoy playing against you.

I don't know Wayne myself, but I think that it's entirely possible that he and the others have no intention of engaging in these antics at the table, and are just maintaining their position to be outrageous.

[shyams]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-04, 09:12, said:

I would add "This lead should (shall?) not be made until all four players have quitted the last trick (see Laws 45G, 65A, and 66A)"

bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 09:16, said:

It would certainly help if it was specific. While currently I am sure it is being interpreted sensibly, relevant wording would be better.

These (first) two posts pretty much cover the gist of what may need to change in the regulation. The rest of it seems to go a bit off-track.

In my opinion, while Vampyr and others are talking about players "flashing cards in a twirling motion", while Cascade and others are approaching it from an angle of one player being allowed to slow down table tempo(?) deliberately.

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 20:40, said:

Law 65A defines when a trick is completed

Law 65A defines a completed trick. It does not define when the cards should be turned over. Perhaps it should -- e.g. a defender may not delay turning over his card by more than [x] seconds after his partner has done so; declarer may not delay turning over his card by more than [x] seconds after dummy has done so.

As defender, I have seen dummies turn their card over but not declarer -- followed by a defender leading to next trick to the annoyance of some declarers. My point is: if declarer did not want the current trick to be quitted why did he/she not prohibit dummy from turning over the card?

bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 13:55, said:

We run bridge games in the normal way, using custom and practice if necessary.

I think this is the main point. If bluejak found that a player was slowing down the game by repeatedly keeping his/her card face up on the table, I guess he would not hesitate to warn the "slow player" instead of the "fast leader".

In other words, some of the sidetracked discussions here are moot.

Finally,

blackshoe, on 2011-October-08, 19:31, said:

Wayne, you're carrying your "Secretary Bird" persona too far. If you're really that big a prick at the table, I don't think anyone would enjoy playing against you.

Blackshoe, you are a forum moderator. I don't think the 2nd sentence was necessary.