[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2023-December-28, 13:20, said:

There’s simply nothing to be gained by a suit preference signal, plus many north’s would ‘think’ about what card to play and even a slight break in tempo shows 2 hearts.

Since when has thinking on trick one shown anything?

PS: Thanks for the posting tip. For some reason I had the same issue on this thread too.

[pescetom]

test... you're right

mikeh, on 2023-December-28, 13:20, said:

As for north’s signal should south lead the heart Edit king…I initially wrote queen, for no reason I can recall…, I’m a simple soul. I’d give count. There’s simply nothing to be gained by a suit preference signal, plus many north’s would ‘think’ about what card to play and even a slight break in tempo shows 2 hearts.

My reasoning is that we normally give count when partner leads a high card and attitude in the suit is irrelevant, as here. And it’s not exactly as if partner is going to switch to a spade or diamond in the extremely improbable event that he wins a trick….indeed, no competent declarer would lose a spade trick.

The second doubt that motivated the thread was exactly this, in particular a burning awareness that my most experienced partner would have given count regardless. I'm with davidkok that we both should be reasoning that the auction and the lead mark Declarer with a singleton and thus suit preference takes priority, but I'm all ears to more experienced players than me who think differently.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2023-December-28, 15:31, said:

Since when has thinking on trick one shown anything?

In these times of transition towards hiding of tempo by computer, the responsibility remains on Declarer to take some time before playing from dummy to trick one... if he instaplays the Ace then we still should do our best not to hesitate, but he can hardly complain.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-December-28, 15:57, said:

In these times of transition towards hiding of tempo by computer, the responsibility remains on Declarer to take some time before playing from dummy to trick one... if he instaplays the Ace then we still should do our best not to hesitate, but he can hardly complain.

If I instaplayed the ace at trick 1, I would expect RHO to think about the hand for however long they needed to work out their later defence irregardless of their heart holding. There's just too much new information for third hand to be under any obligation to maintain tempo.

[DavidKok]

sfi, on 2023-December-28, 16:02, said:

If I instaplayed the ace at trick 1, I would expect RHO to think about the hand for however long they needed to work out their later defence irregardless of their heart holding. There's just too much new information for third hand to be under any obligation to maintain tempo.

While true I think this is tricky if RHO holds a singleton. I was always told that it is unethical to think and then make a mandatory play, and instead you should play first and then request for the cards to remain face up so you can think at the end of the trick. Unfortunately this does mean that any pause implies a doubleton (or longer) in the case that declarer instaplayed. I don't know if there is a way for the defenders to protect themselves against this.

[sfi]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-28, 16:05, said:

I don't know if there is a way for the defenders to protect themselves against this.

My effort to protect myself is to always work through the hand before playing to trick 1 - distribution, auction, lead inferences, opponent tells, our tricks, their tricks, declarer's likely line of play, etc. I'm not going to do that in the same tempo as other tricks, and I'm quite comfortable making the argument that I'm entitled to do all this when dummy hits. Maybe I get into trouble one day but it's been ok thus far.

I do occasionally say that I'm thinking of the whole hand, but only if I might have a trick 1 decision, actually don't, and it looks like declarer may be getting deceived. At a guess that happens every couple of tournaments.

FWIW, we do have a few declarers who are known to play very quickly at national events. They will catch players with their tempo, but I've never seen them say or do anything that could be considered "sharp practice" when the opponents take the time they need.

[DavidKok]

I think that's how it should work, but I am not sure that it does. It requires the declarers (or director) to take your word for it if you were thinking about future tricks while holding a singleton, rather than coffeehousing. The fact that you say you are thinking about the whole hand means little - the coffeehousers are also prepared to defend their actions.

My current approach is to play to the current trick as soon as I reasonably know what I want to do (and on any trick other than the first I have time to plan ahead) and then request for time to consider the implications at the end of the trick. This lets declarer put me under pressure by playing very rapidly but does make it clear I am actually thinking about the whole hand.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-December-28, 16:17, said:

FWIW, we do have a few declarers who are known to play very quickly at national events. They will catch players with their tempo, but I've never seen them say or do anything that could be considered "sharp practice" when the opponents take the time they need.

One timid advance in our national regulations is that the Declarer is recommended to pause before playing from dummy to the first trick. I would have preferred an obligation of n seconds, but at least it gives me (as a TD) the ability to chastise them and forgive more or less innocent opponents "caught" with their tempo.

[mikeh]

Gilithin, on 2023-December-28, 15:31, said:

Since when has thinking on trick one shown anything?

PS: Thanks for the posting tip. For some reason I had the same issue on this thread too.

Test

If declarer instaplays at trick one, I think it appropriate to pause as north and it’s on declarer’s head if he draws an incorrect inference

But most declarers in a non-laydown slam do pause…indeed most good declarers pause from habit.

Once declarer pauses, a hesitation by north absolutely conveys information

With a stiff, no ethical player would break tempo once declarer took time to play to trick one.

So ANY hesitation reveals that north has 2+ cards in the suit. Sure, bridge logic (on this hand) tells south that north probably has a doubleton, but the point is that one ought not to convey information by tempo even if partner should figure it ought anyway.

Ironically, pausing to think about whether this is a suit preference situation makes north’s play both count and suit preference regardless of his choice

A slow 2 cannot be a stiff…a stiff is played in tempo. Therefore it shows 2 or more hearts and the club ace. A slow 10 does the same thing….if north had no interest in a switch, he’d give count in tempo. So the pause says that he was thinking about playing the 2, which would (after the pause) show the club ace. He has nothing to think about without it, thus the very act of thinking implies that he had something to think about, which could only be that club ace.

[sfi]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-28, 16:21, said:

I think that's how it should work, but I am not sure that it does.

In practice, it works fine for me. My sense is we have many fewer obvious coffeehousers in the ABF and the directors are less prepared to put up with them than in the ACBL, but I haven't played on your side of the pond for almost a decade. I do have a couple of habits that may help out - first is that the consideration of card to play comes quite late in my assessment, which helps generate a more even tempo at this point. And second is that I almost never look at my hand during the auction, so I will normally be inspecting dummy and working through the possibilities for a while before fanning my cards - this may help mitigate expectations that I'm thinking of specific cards. I'm not sure though, and it's not why I do either.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2023-December-28, 16:05, said:

While true I think this is tricky if RHO holds a singleton. I was always told that it is unethical to think and then make a mandatory play, and instead you should play first and then request for the cards to remain face up so you can think at the end of the trick. Unfortunately this does mean that any pause implies a doubleton (or longer) in the case that declarer instaplayed. I don't know if there is a way for the defenders to protect themselves against this.

Test

If declarer instaplays, tell declarer that ‘I’m entitled to think at this trick even when you play instantly…so that’s what I’m doing’

But you’d better get into the habit of always stating this or you’re at risk of passing improper info to partner by varying when you do this. I think instaplaying at trick one is sharp practice.

[DavidKok]

mikeh, on 2023-December-28, 17:11, said:

If declarer instaplays, tell declarer that ‘I’m entitled to think at this trick even when you play instantly…so that’s what I’m doing’

But you’d better get into the habit of always stating this or you’re at risk of passing improper info to partner by varying when you do this. I think instaplaying at trick one is sharp practice.

I do this, and fortunately it is sufficiently rare that it's not a big issue. Of course the coffeehousers do this too. In fact, the extra statement accompanying my pause does very little to distinguish me from unethical players. It makes me feel morally superior about my pause compared to people who fib with a singleton, but at the end of the day declarer and director will have to take my word on my motivation for pausing. I really don't think this is the way forward.
This practice also opens up a million debates on normal lengths for pauses - if declarer takes 8 seconds to survey dummy, am I guilty? 10 seconds? 15 seconds?

I don't expect to solve this problem, but I want to repeat that the approach I've been following (play my card as soon as I reasonably can, then have my think at the end of the trick) is practical and avoids director calls about murky time sensitive situations. It does mean that speedy declarers unethically get the better of me sometimes, but it's rare and easy to establish a pattern if it happens repeatedly.

P.S.: On some level I think it's ridiculous that we are seriously discussing "get into the habit of always stating this". This is only half a step removed from preferential treatment. What if I play in a setting where the director doesn't know me? I'd really like the same facts about the deal to lead to the same ruling, not get a different one based on my reputation.

[thepossum]

I am encouraged that the lead of the King did not give away the slam
-but the thread appears a lot of fuss and thought about nothing
-but I accept I missed out on the action later - I was thinking I had much say in what happened after the first lead

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-December-28, 12:49, said:

NS did well to find the club switch, but it looks to me as if the slam was sound with better Declarer play (I don't think it was necessary to guess the ♠Q).

Alright, I'll bite. Just how much alcohol was required for declarer to go down?

(And the logic of the hand dictates a club return - no signal required)

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2023-December-28, 15:57, said:

In these times of transition towards hiding of tempo by computer, the responsibility remains on Declarer to take some time before playing from dummy to trick one... if he instaplays the Ace then we still should do our best not to hesitate, but he can hardly complain.

I always stop to think when the dummy goes down regardless of which of the other 3 hands I am playing. I will do this even as opening leader after 7 cards have been insta-played, which happens quite often at BBO social tables. Allowing yourself to be pressured into playing outside of your normal tempo is just bad bridge and can potentially carry UI. If you insta-play singletons but otherwise take some time, this is a big ethical challenge for your partner.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-December-28, 19:44, said:

Alright, I'll bite. Just how much alcohol was required for declarer to go down?

I wasn't present, but it was late in the tournament and he has been known to down several whiskies on Friday night
NS are teetotallers.

[pescetom]

mikeh, on 2023-December-28, 17:11, said:

I think instaplaying at trick one is sharp practice.

I think instaplaying at any trick is sharp practice, even in situations where it is widely tolerated like a Defender who takes the trick and instantly leads to the next one. The UI conveyed is obvious, as is the potential disruption of Declarer's counting and composure.