[Cascade]

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.

That is exactly the way that I see holding one's card face up to delay or attempt to delay the play to the next trick is being used.

[gordontd]

Cascade, on 2011-October-14, 03:28, said:

That is exactly the way that I see holding one's card face up to delay or attempt to delay the play to the next trick is being used.

It seems that way to me too, but you, uniquely, seem to think there's something wrong with that. What's wrong with "improving one's own position"? Isn't that what we're all trying to do all the time when we play bridge?

[blackshoe]

The usual scenario IME is that someone turns his card, someone else wants to see it, he asks to see it, the player turns it back up, waits for some signal from the asker that he's seen and assimilated the card, and things proceed from there. Generally, everybody's happy and there's no problem. I'm not sure if people are hammering on this because they see more actual problems at the table, or just to have something to talk about.

I have — rarely — seen a player, asked to show his card, flip it over and then back quickly. Too quickly for much to register. Such players are violating Law 74A2 if nothing else. I've seen players refuse to turn their cards over again, but only when the asker has already turned his card. Those players are within their rights.

If you want to see the trick to which you've just played, and your LHO is on lead and leads quickly, you'd better be quick with your request, or your partner is likely to get his play to the next trick out there before you can say anything. I don't know about anybody else, but I'd be pretty annoyed — at LHO.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-14, 04:15, said:

If you want to see the trick to which you've just played, and your LHO is on lead and leads quickly, you'd better be quick with your request, or your partner is likely to get his play to the next trick out there before you can say anything. I don't know about anybody else, but I'd be pretty annoyed — at LHO.

If anyone is deserving of your annoyance, isn't it your partner, for playing to the next trick when he knows you want to see the current one?

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-October-14, 03:26, said:

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.

Is there anything in them to say that you cannot?

My question (albeit an implied one) from earlier remains unanswered: Given that the laws require you to not think in tempo-sensitive positions, when _are_ you meant to think about the whole hand (rather than specific plays) if not between tricks. The other times you have mentioned (while others are playing or thinking) cannot be the only times since it is not guaranteed to be sufficient time to think.

And (since this is "Changing Laws & Regulations" after all), there are clearly those of us who believe this practice is currently allowed. Those of you who believe it's not technically legal - should it be made so?

[gnasher]

I don't think there's any doubt that you're allowed to leave your card face up whilst you think. The only point of dispute is what the other players are allowed or required to do whilst you do this.

[mjj29]

gnasher, on 2011-October-14, 09:05, said:

I don't think there's any doubt that you're allowed to leave your card face up whilst you think. The only point of dispute is what the other players are allowed or required to do whilst you do this.

Fair enough. I certainly know what it's _polite_ for them to do while you do this (-:

[axman]

mjj29, on 2011-October-14, 07:55, said:

Is there anything in them to say that you cannot?

My question (albeit an implied one) from earlier remains unanswered: Given that the laws require you to not think in tempo-sensitive positions, when _are_ you meant to think about the whole hand (rather than specific plays) if not between tricks. The other times you have mentioned (while others are playing or thinking) cannot be the only times since it is not guaranteed to be sufficient time to think.

And (since this is "Changing Laws & Regulations" after all), there are clearly those of us who believe this practice is currently allowed. Those of you who believe it's not technically legal - should it be made so?

To build on this thought, a point I was making was the importance for the law to deal satisfactorily with all the ancillary issues [the law not conflict with itself, for instance]. An example being that in the last two years I pointed out that the law required all players to quit their cards immediately upon a trick being completed. And yet, the law also provides for a player being permitted to see quitted cards provided he has not quitted his card.... uh-huh, right.

Providing solutions [prevention] for improper deception is merely one of the issues that ‘request to see the last trick’ touches.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2011-October-14, 05:01, said:

If anyone is deserving of your annoyance, isn't it your partner, for playing to the next trick when he knows you want to see the current one?

Does he know that? Or is all he knows that I haven't turned my card yet? I do have partners who, not seeing an obvious reason I might be a little slow in turning it, just think I'm a little slow, and will turn it "soon".

[barmar]

Suppose your RHO wins the trick, so you know you'll be second hand on the next trick. And you know you have something to think about regarding the rest of the hand. If you wait until after he leads, it creates issues: partner and/or the opponents may be misled that you're thinking about this trick or that RHO's lead caused you to think. Doing your thinking BEFORE the lead mitigates this. And the way to indicate that you want to think at this time is to keep your card face up.

Sometimes my partner does this, and other players assume that he wants to see their cards as well, so they turn them back up. He'll often say that he doesn't need to see those cards, he just needs time to think.

He also keeps his card face up when he has won the trick and he's thinking about the hand. It may just be habit, but keeping his card faced allows him the right to ask to see the other cards from the last trick, so it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2011-October-14, 07:55, said:

The other times you have mentioned (while others are playing or thinking) cannot be the only times since it is not guaranteed to be sufficient time to think.

These opportunities are also not guaranteed to come at the time you need to think.

[ICEmachine]

Cascade, on 2011-October-09, 16:19, said:

I am not attempting to be outrageous. I believe that the laws do not give a player the right to delay the game by keeping his card face up. Facing a card is so that players can see the card and not to buy time to think.

What is your view on players who play their card without facing it, claiming that they had no problem with what to play, but would like to think about the hand. I have mostly read about players doing this and have always wondered if it was allowed by the law.

[gnasher]

ICEmachine, on 2011-November-03, 23:06, said:

What is your view on players who play their card without facing it, claiming that they had no problem with what to play, but would like to think about the hand. I have mostly read about players doing this and have always wondered if it was allowed by the law.

I think it's stupid and selfish. Playing your card face-down means that you're able to use the time more effectively than the other players, because you know what card you will play to this trick but nobody else does. It has no compensating benefit, because it conveys exactly the same UI as playing the card face-up and then pausing to think.

From a legal point of view, it's a breach of the procedure defined in Law 45A ("Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table"). Law 74A3 requires you to follow correct procedure, and Law 74A2 requires you not to be annoying. So I think it's illegal.

[barmar]

74B3 says you shouldn't detach a card from your hand before it's your turn to play, but that's not the situation you describe.

74B4 says you shouldn't delay the game unnecessarily. But if you need to think, it's not unnecessary.

So the only remaining possibility is that there's UI from the break in tempo. Partner can tell that the BIT is not from deciding the card to play to the urrent trick

[Cascade]

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

...

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.

I have played weekend congresses on the last two weekends. In those congresses I have played 345 hands of bridge. On not one occasion did a player whose turn it was not to lead to the next trick attempt to delay the game by holding a card face up on the table. This strongly suggests to me that the habit of doing so is a habit that is not universal among bridge players. And therefore is not the way the game is played.

[ICEmachine]

gnasher, on 2011-November-04, 02:14, said:

I think it's stupid and selfish. Playing your card face-down means that you're able to use the time more effectively than the other players, because you know what card you will play to this trick but nobody else does. It has no compensating benefit, because it conveys exactly the same UI as playing the card face-up and then pausing to think.

From a legal point of view, it's a breach of the procedure defined in Law 45A ("Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table"). Law 74A3 requires you to follow correct procedure, and Law 74A2 requires you not to be annoying. So I think it's illegal.

Yes, I have always been very skeptical of this. In real life here in Iceland players just say that they would like some extra time to think of the hand if needed and most of the time they do that by leaving their card face up and usually that means that nobody plays to the next trick until this card is being put face down.


I dont remember running into any irregularities or TD calls as consequence to any error in this procedure.

[mycroft]

Cascade, on 2011-November-04, 04:45, said:

I have played weekend congresses on the last two weekends. In those congresses I have played 345 hands of bridge. On not one occasion did a player whose turn it was not to lead to the next trick attempt to delay the game by holding a card face up on the table. This strongly suggests to me that the habit of doing so is a habit that is not universal among bridge players. And therefore is not the way the game is played.

I have played 10 games in the past month - ~ 270 hands of bridge. On not one occasion did a player make a 1-level call that was not "natural" (1♣ was occasionally 2+). This strongly suggests to me that Strong clubs are not universal among bridge players, and therefore is not *the* way the game is played.

Ridiculous? Yes. But the analogy holds. Unless it's not *legal*, it's just as *a* way the game is played as is Precision.

But having said that, this sounds like one of the things that should be Grattanised once the window opens for "suggestions to clarify meaning".

[Cascade]

mycroft, on 2011-November-04, 11:25, said:

I have played 10 games in the past month - ~ 270 hands of bridge. On not one occasion did a player make a 1-level call that was not "natural" (1♣ was occasionally 2+). This strongly suggests to me that Strong clubs are not universal among bridge players, and therefore is not *the* way the game is played.

Ridiculous? Yes. But the analogy holds. Unless it's not *legal*, it's just as *a* way the game is played as is Precision.

But having said that, this sounds like one of the things that should be Grattanised once the window opens for "suggestions to clarify meaning".

Have a look upthread blujak described the way bridge is played as "a particular way" and those that did not follow his description of that "particular way" insultingly.

While that way is something that I have seen. It is something that I have seen only overseas at major events and by some players (a minority) that have been exposed to international competition and perhaps very occasionally there might be some other exception. Hence I have argued that "the way" bridge is played is not the "particular way" that blujak described.

[barmar]

I don't do it myself, IIRC, but I think my regular partner does it about once every 3 sessions, but I'm not sure how many of these are when he's not on lead. It's not common, but not totally unheard of.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-November-04, 11:25, said:

But having said that, this sounds like one of the things that should be Grattanised once the window opens for "suggestions to clarify meaning".

Hmmm.... "Grattanised" and "clarify" in the same sentence...