[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2011-October-10, 20:13, said:

Perhaps you should reread what you wrote. It certainly seems personal to me. The paragraph in question begins with my personal name. The second sentence uses a personal pronoun seemingly referring to the proper noun (me) in the first sentence. I can't see another way to read that.

Yes there is a condition. The condition however is suggestive. The statement in the fisrt sentence is that I am acting like a "Secretary Bird" and the suggestion in the second sentence is that the "Secretary Bird" is "that big a prick". The condition is if I act like this at the table but that does not diminish from the comparison to a "Secretary Bird" and the labeling of that character as a "prick".

From which it is hard to accept that the comment was "not intended as a personal attack".

Fair enough. I withdraw the comment, and I apologize for having offended.

[axman]

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

The law is not specific about leading to a trick after the first when one or more players have not quitted the previous trick. Law 44G says "The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won". 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)". Comments?

For reference:

Law 45G: "No player should turn his card face down until all four players have played to the trick."
Law 65A: "When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table."
Law 66A: "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced."

I do not believe that the contributions to this thread reflect the gravity of the issues.

To demonstrate I’ll relate a series of events that I have suffered many more than several times. Consider here that I sit east, picking up the action at T4 where pard led, dummy and I play and declarer detaches a card and places it in the discards in such a way that I can not see its face. The other two players quit their cards and declarer now exposes a card on the table, pard exposes a card, and declarer calls for dummy’s card. I now quit my card to T4 and the other three players quit their cards; and declarer exposes a card and then pard exposes a card.

I should think that declarer’s first card was not played to T4 and the second one was. Doesn’t that make pard’s next card the lead to T5? And, possibly OOT? And, has not pard’s playing a card at T6 cause a defective trick whereby I did not play to T5?

The reason that I left my card faced was to find out which card declarer played to T4. Does anyone really believe that the TD will rule that declarer’s second card belonged to T4. Do you believe that it is right headed for a player to [improperly] perpetrate a series of events that cascades into entrapping an opponent into establishing a revoke via a defective trick?

There should be enough meat here to spark some lively and terrifying thought. For them who want to fashion law it behooves you to carefully consider the issues that are crucial to present to the players as important and the words used to convey the messages- lest you do no better than the WBF.

[bluejak]

Yes, Law 74.

Whether we need a more specific Law I have no opinion about.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-11, 06:41, said:

Yes, Law 74.

Whether we need a more specific Law I have no opinion about.

So I have this right: You think that a player whose turn it is to play and who therefore plays a card is somehow in breach of the "CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE" law simply because he played his card at his turn to play.

I think this is clutching at straws.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-October-11, 11:55, said:

So I have this right: You think that a player whose turn it is to play and who therefore plays a card is somehow in breach of the "CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE" law simply because he played his card at his turn to play.

What you seem not to understand is that it is not the player's turn yet if other people are still examining the previous trick.

[Vampyr]

Anyway, no one would wish to play this way (leading to tricks while another trick is not yet completed) so what is the point of discussing whether it is legal?

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-11, 20:58, said:

What you seem not to understand is that it is not the player's turn yet if other people are still examining the previous trick.

Indeed I don't understand.

My understanding is that the player that won a trick is free to lead. The trick is won when, at the moment, four cards have been played to it. From those four cards we can easily and obviously determine the winner and therefore the leader to the subsequent trick.

[barmar]

axman, on 2011-October-10, 21:29, said:

I do not believe that the contributions to this thread reflect the gravity of the issues.

To demonstrate I’ll relate a series of events that I have suffered many more than several times. Consider here that I sit east, picking up the action at T4 where pard led, dummy and I play and declarer detaches a card and places it in the discards in such a way that I can not see its face. The other two players quit their cards and declarer now exposes a card on the table, pard exposes a card, and declarer calls for dummy’s card. I now quit my card to T4 and the other three players quit their cards; and declarer exposes a card and then pard exposes a card.

I should think that declarer’s first card was not played to T4 and the second one was. Doesn’t that make pard’s next card the lead to T5? And, possibly OOT? And, has not pard’s playing a card at T6 cause a defective trick whereby I did not play to T5?

Did you really mean "should think"? Perhaps "might think" would be more appropriate. Or is this a difference between British and American nuances?

But why would you think this? Even if you didn't see the face of declarer's card, you probably saw him pull the card from his hand. If a player plays his card in a fashion that you can't see it, you should simply say so: "Sorry, I couldn't see your card" and they should happily face it for you. While most people do understand that keeping your card faced is an implicit request for everyone else to show their cards, why depend on this when you can make the request clearly?

[pran]

Law 44B Subsequent Plays to a Trick said:

After the lead, each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. ([...])

Law 44G Lead to Tricks Subsequent to First Trick said:

The lead to the next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won.

Law 65A Completed Trick said:

When four cards have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table.

So Law 44B defines that a trick is complete when each of the four players has played a card to that trick.

Law 65A specifies the proper action when a trick is (already) complete (as defined in Law 44B).

Law 44G states that the lead to a next trick is from the hand in which the last trick was won. Naturally this is not known until the trick is complete, but there is nothing in law 44G (or in any other law) that requires the lead to be delayed until after all four players have turned their cards face down. (David's reference to Law 74 stands on its own as a statement without any substance).

However, we have

Law 66A Inspection of current Trick said:

So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced.

which on certain specified conditions may kick in whether or not a lead has been made to a subsequent trick. This law does not in any way imply that such lead is an irregularity, but an effect is that (further) plays to the next trick must be delayed until inspection of the current trick is completed. It is also obvious that such inspection can only give cause to retraction of cards already played to the next trick if the inspection reveals a revoke in the just completed trick (in which case Law 62 applies).

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-October-11, 11:55, said:

So I have this right: You think that a player whose turn it is to play and who therefore plays a card is somehow in breach of the "CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE" law simply because he played his card at his turn to play.

I think this is clutching at straws.

Let us get this straight. Bridge is played in a particular way, one trick is played, when it is finished and the cards are turned down, another trick starts. You get a total arsewipe who decides it would be fun to upset the others at the table and play to the next trick when they are clearly and demonstrably not ready. This is going to upset them, but the arsewipe does not care: he plays, saying "Show me a Law that says I cannot do this".

Law 74: it is not clutching at straws: it is dealing with people who deliberately upset others by acting as tosspots.

[blackshoe]

More specifically, I think, Law 74A.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 08:41, said:

Let us get this straight. Bridge is played in a particular way, one trick is played, when it is finished and the cards are turned down, another trick starts. You get a total arsewipe who decides it would be fun to upset the others at the table and play to the next trick when they are clearly and demonstrably not ready. This is going to upset them, but the arsewipe does not care: he plays, saying "Show me a Law that says I cannot do this".

Law 74: it is not clutching at straws: it is dealing with people who deliberately upset others by acting as tosspots.

More insults ho hum.

1. I do not believe the combined affect and purpose of Law 65A and Law 66A is allow a player to delay the game or to buy time to think.

2. I do not believe that bridge is played this way everywhere and by everyone.

3. My experience is that you are much more likely to find a player using this delaying tactic (for want of a better phrase) among the minority of better players. The club I play at has graded sessions - graded according to ability or experience (or maybe Masterpoints) - I would doubt that on the lower grades you would find any player delaying the game in this way. Even on the top graded night I cannot recall for example one player on the most recent Tuesday night delaying the game in the way you say. There may have been an occasional ask to see a card - I did it once myself when I had not taken in the relevant spot cards but not to stop another playing leading.

4. Rarely I have seen someone try to delay the game at tournament by this tactic when it is not their turn to play.

I believe it is a habit that has crept into the game by some (a minority, usually better players) that is not explicitly allowed and a sensible reading of the laws suggests it is not allowed (see Sven Pran's post above). For the most part it is tolerated. However when it gets to the point where David is suggesting that a player who is simply playing a card to the next trick after he has won a trick is doing so to deliberately upset another player when that player probably just thinks its my turn to play I should play and further that David wants to slap that player with a penalty for simply playing a card in turn then things have gone too far.

If the game is really to be played so that a player not on lead is allowed to delay the lead of another player then I think that should be explicit in the laws.

I don't really care although I do not believe that such a change to the laws would be a significant enhancement to the game.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-October-12, 13:08, said:

1. I do not believe the combined affect and purpose of Law 65A and Law 66A is allow a player to delay the game or to buy time to think.

Firstly, there's an obvious difference between someone leading because they did not see that another player still wishes to review the previous trick and a player leading despite them knowing another player does not want to yet continue. I think we all agree that to do anything *in order* to disconcert another player is illegal and leave it at that.

However, I also would like to object to your 'in order to delay the game' point of view. If I must do some thinking, why is doing it now rather than at my turn to play delaying the game? The same amount of thought will go on over the whole hand, moving it around doesn't delay the game. Indeed, in some cases, various bits of the laws tell us that we should not break tempo when it's our turn to call (for example, when holding a singleton) so waiting until then may be actively bad.

If I think while reviewing the trick it a) is obvious that I need to think - it's not like I'm hiding that whether I do it now or at my turn to play, b) makes it clear that I'm not thinking about a tempo-sensitive position where I must avoid breaking tempo, which surely must be right in order to comply with that section of the laws.

'buying time to think' is a strange phrase - I'm going to take this long to think at some point and I am perfectly entitled to as long as I need during the hand (subject to the round time limit), I'm not gaining extra thinking time by thinking now rather than later.

Is it preferable if the laws define correct procedure as waiting until all reviews of the current trick have been completed and the cards quitted before leading to the next? I think so, if only to prevent mixing up of cards to tricks. Should people who lead without noticing a review is complete be punished? No, of course not. I certainly think it _is_ legal to think during a trick review in order to make it clear to people that you are thinking about the hand as a whole and avoid BITs in tempo-sensitive positions.

[bluejak]

You have a right to think about the hand at any time where thinking will not mislead opponents.

Strangely, there have always been a number of people, a large number, here and on other forums, who believe you only have a right to think at times they decree. I have never understood this.

[AlexJonson]

bluejak, on 2011-October-12, 19:13, said:

You have a right to think about the hand at any time where thinking will not mislead opponents.

Strangely, there have always been a number of people, a large number, here and on other forums, who believe you only have a right to think at times they decree. I have never understood this.

So we will now allow this thread to die after the repulsively insulting posts from Bluejak. I know that people respect his experience and skills,

But where are any sensible posters to decry Bluejak's behaviour.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2011-October-12, 16:38, said:

'buying time to think' is a strange phrase

Yes, he keeps using it instead of "taking time to think". LOL

[blackshoe]

The implication to "buying time" of course is that he is not entitled to have that time - he's not really "buying" it, he's stealing it. Which imo is BS, because he is entitled to have time to think - so long as opponents are not misled.

[barmar]

My dictionary has an entry for the phrase "buy time": delay an event temporarily so as to have longer to improve one's own position.

[mjj29]

barmar, on 2011-October-13, 20:59, said:

My dictionary has an entry for the phrase "buy time": delay an event temporarily so as to have longer to improve one's own position.

The implication being that one is not entitled to that time - but bridge is a game where you are allowed to think - except in speedball, of course

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-13, 19:56, said:

Yes, he keeps using it instead of "taking time to think". LOL

I don't think its funny (or BS for that matter Ed).

Of course bridge is a thinking game. No one disputes that.

You can think and frequently have to when it is your turn to play. If the opponent has played a card in front of you then you don't always know what the card was going to be until it has been played. And sometimes it surprises you. If you are the leader then you may have some choices and need to think.

You can think when others are playing their cards.

You can think when others are thinking.

The point of dispute is can you force the other players to stop playing at any time so that you can think? Obviously they have to wait for you when it is your turn to play.

But can you make them wait when it is another player's turn to play?

I do not believe that the laws support this practice. You can't stop mid-trick at another player's turn and stop them playing so you can think. Can you really do this after one trick has been played and before the next has been led to?

I have yet to see a convincing argument that this practice however common others think it is is supported by the laws as they are currently written.

For the record I played another session today and not once did i notice any player delaying or attempting to delay the game by keeping their card face up. There was only one time when a player, my partner, asked to see the completed trick after some players had quit their trick. I will try and observe how common this practice is at the three session tournament I am playing in the weekend.

It appears to me to be a practice that is practiced only by a minority.