[Mbodell]

Also, when I am defending if I'm playing someone who plays faster than I'd like I make extra sure to leave the first trick out longer and ask people to let me consider the hand at the first trick.

This can sometimes give things away a little if the key decision is T1, but more often this lets me catch my breath and consider the whole hand, what is partner's shape, what is declarer's shape, where are the high cards likely to be, and how many winners/losers do we have and do they have. I should do this all the time (and do the thinking most of the time), but if I'm playing someone I know is a fast/turbo player, I intentionally think even longer at this first trick (and likely play better as a result).

[Cascade]

paulg, on 2011-August-10, 07:15, said:

It should remembered that Rodwell's pace of play is funereal and his 'fast' play is just very slow.

If this is true then it would seem that Eric Rodwell intended 'fast' to mean 'faster than normal'.

[gordontd]

Mbodell, on 2011-August-10, 16:02, said:

Also, when I am defending if I'm playing someone who plays faster than I'd like I make extra sure to leave the first trick out longer and ask people to let me consider the hand at the first trick.

Maybe this is part of Wayne's issue - I seem to remember him arguing in another forum some years ago that players don't have the right to slow down play by not quitting a trick.

[Cascade]

gordontd, on 2011-August-10, 18:08, said:

Maybe this is part of Wayne's issue - I seem to remember him arguing in another forum some years ago that players don't have the right to slow down play by not quitting a trick.

Indeed I am not convinced that tactic is legal.

1. There is nothing in the laws that say I cannot lead to the next trick until after you have quitted your trick

2. There is an instruction saying that the trick is to be quitted "when" all four players have played to the current trick

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2011-August-10, 18:14, said:

Indeed I am not convinced that tactic is legal.

1. There is nothing in the laws that say I cannot lead to the next trick until after you have quitted your trick

2. There is an instruction saying that the trick is to be quitted "when" all four players have played to the current trick

The reference seems to start with 65A, which impies a trick is "completed" when all four players have played, and the players are to then turn their played cards face-down.

However, this does not seem to require immediacy. 66A allows a player who has not turned his own card to inspect the cards played to that trick by others. Maybe there is nothing requiring you to wait until all cards are "quitted" (turned) from the previous trick, but it seems the person with a faced card (whether next to play or not) must be able to halt proceedings before his side has played to the next trick, for inspection of that previous trick. Otherwise such player would not be able to excercise his inspection rights under 66A.

This track, is moving away from the original issue, however; and into ways of countering rapid play.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-10, 19:07, said:

This track, is moving away from the original issue, however; and into ways of countering rapid play.

Perhaps, but I brought it up because it seems to me that the reason why Wayne is bothered by the thought of his opponents playing fast is because he doesn't think he has the means to keep the play to tempo.

[AlexJonson]

gordontd, on 2011-August-11, 01:45, said:

Perhaps, but I brought it up because it seems to me that the reason why Wayne is bothered by the thought of his opponents playing fast is because he doesn't think he has the means to keep the play to tempo.

Either defender or both can control tempo at their turn to play.

I would personally never leave my card face up over after the end of the trick, unless to ask to see the cards played. But it seems clear, if only for the reasons Aguahombre gives, that it would be more trouble than it's worth to make it illegal.

[pran]

AlexJonson, on 2011-August-11, 03:38, said:

Either defender or both can control tempo at their turn to play.

I would personally never leave my card face up over after the end of the trick, unless to ask to see the cards played. But it seems clear, if only for the reasons Aguahombre gives, that it would be more trouble than it's worth to make it illegal.

Players are not expected to have "photographic memory".
Any player has an obvious right to maintain his played card face up during a reasonable time for the purpose of digesting the information he can (legally) have from seeing the cards actually played.

(Maintaining a played card face up for the (sole) purpose of disconcerning an opponent or to send a coded message to his partner is of course illegal.)

[barmar]

I think this is taking things too far. The logic that says Rodwell is wrong would also imply that "ducking smoothly" is unethical.

He's not trying to mislead the opponents by playing quickly, just putting pressure on them.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on 2011-August-10, 18:14, said:

Indeed I am not convinced that tactic is legal.

1. There is nothing in the laws that say I cannot lead to the next trick until after you have quitted your trick

2. There is an instruction saying that the trick is to be quitted "when" all four players have played to the current trick

If I need to think, but not about the play to the current trick, then the laws don't permit me to think before playing to this trick (particularly if I have, say, a singleton) and if I turn my card I'll then have the same problem at the next trick, so I play, but leave my card face up until I've finished my thinking. If I want to think before tempo-sensitive positions I can't think of a better time to do it...

[pran]

barmar, on 2011-August-11, 06:07, said:

I think this is taking things too far. The logic that says Rodwell is wrong would also imply that "ducking smoothly" is unethical.

He's not trying to mislead the opponents by playing quickly, just putting pressure on them.

And opponents are in their full right to resist such pressure by adjusting their speed for their own comfort so long as they do not unjustified delay the game.

[Vampyr]

Scoti, on 2011-August-10, 06:48, said:

This matter of tempo is something that worries me. I have played friendly bridge and online bridge only, so it is a bit intimidating to think that my every card might be timed in a live tournament. Several times online players have remarked that they thought I had used tempo to signal my P. But that was not the case. Rather that I simply think about a lot of varied considerations, as well as keep 4 suit count, and try to paint a distribution picture. And if my own opponents are playing quickly then much of it will be done at times it is my play. So I may have what others could see as an unjustified delay, when I'm actually not even be thinking about the next card I lay. Its got to be done sometime.

If opponents have mentioned this several times, then it is likely that you do have a problem.

Naturally you need to think sometime, but just before you are going to make a discard with a significant meaning is the wrong time.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-11, 09:18, said:

If opponents have mentioned this several times, then it is likely that you do have a problem.

Naturally you need to think sometime, but just before you are going to make a discard with a significant meaning is the wrong time.

OTOH, players online are all completely intolerant of taking any time to think. I'm almost always the first table to finish a round at IRL clubs, but still get complaints of slow play online if I want to put any thought at all into my plays. Even when I'm declaring a tricky hand where I need to thenk.

[barmar]

Online players do lots of things they would never do f2f, you can't use them as a standard. In the case of thinking, f2f players can see your demeanor, and can tell that you're thinking about something, not clicking in some other window when you're supposed to be playing. There are also different social pressures.

[Phil]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-11, 09:18, said:

If opponents have mentioned this several times, then it is likely that you do have a problem.

Or the opponents do.

If my partner served the table, or I did, and an opponent types the standard 'faster pls', I will respond with, "sorry I need to think about this". If they persist, then its "don't let the door hit you on the a$$".

If an opponent served, I'll politely say that I prefer a game where we think about the hand, instead of pushing cards. This doesn't happen often generally.

[barmar]

Phil, on 2011-August-11, 11:35, said:

Or the opponents do.

If my partner served the table, or I did, and an opponent types the standard 'faster pls', I will respond with, "sorry I need to think about this". If they persist, then its "don't let the door hit you on the a$$".

If an opponent served, I'll politely say that I prefer a game where we think about the hand, instead of pushing cards. This doesn't happen often generally.

And when you're playing in a tourney?

Some players think that being in a speedball tourney means you can't take more than 5 seconds to think about anything, they immediately pipe up with "faster, this is speedball".

[Phil]

barmar, on 2011-August-11, 11:39, said:

Some players think that being in a speedball tourney means you can't take more than 5 seconds to think about anything, they immediately pipe up with "faster, this is speedball".

Or they just call the director, which is annoying and wastes even more time.

[AlexJonson]

pran, on 2011-August-11, 05:04, said:

Players are not expected to have "photographic memory".
Any player has an obvious right to maintain his played card face up during a reasonable time for the purpose of digesting the information he can (legally) have from seeing the cards actually played.

(Maintaining a played card face up for the (sole) purpose of disconcerning an opponenttrick,or to send a coded message to his partner is of course illegal.)

Let's ignore your final point Pran, I'm not a Secretary Bird.

Imagine you used to play the game with a pack of cards and no boards to put them in. When everyone plays to a trick, declarer/defender takes them in and plays to the next trick at his pace.

I choose to play the game in the same way now - and of course you can legally play differently.

[pran]

AlexJonson, on 2011-August-11, 14:14, said:

Let's ignore your final point Pran, I'm not a Secretary Bird.

Imagine you used to play the game with a pack of cards and no boards to put them in. When everyone plays to a trick, declarer/defender takes them in and plays to the next trick at his pace.

I choose to play the game in the same way now - and of course you can legally play differently.

In that case I believe the applicable laws are those for Contract Bridge where we find:

Law 66 – Inspection of Tricks
Declarer or either defender may, until a member of his side has led or played to the following trick, inspect a trick and inquire what card each player has played to it. [...] (my enhancement)

Which gives even more latitude to a player who feels pressure from an opponent.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on 2011-August-11, 06:08, said:

If I need to think, but not about the play to the current trick, then the laws don't permit me to think before playing to this trick (particularly if I have, say, a singleton) and ...

Much as I hate to open a can of worms - I just know the next two posts - the Laws do not say any such thing. They say you may not mislead. I say "I am not thinking about this trick" and now I am not misleading so the Law does not say I cannot think.