[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-August-11, 16:30, said:

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.

OK, sure, but just thinking before turning your card is an even easier way to communicate this, and I've never been sure of how well such comments work at avoiding charges of thinking in tempo-sensitive positions when it wasn't neccessary.

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2011-August-11, 15:11, said:

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.

Strangely, you omitted "until he has turned his own card face down on the table", which is written in my copy of 66A which you quoted.

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-August-11, 15:11, said:

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)

That isn't an "enhancement", it's a material rewording conveying an entirely different meaning to that set out in the Laws.

Law 66A states, "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." My emphasis added but no "enhancements".

Once you have turned your card over you no longer have a right to inspect a quitted trick, irrespective of whether or not your side has played to the next trick. Pursuant to Law 66B you can look at your own card from the previous trick (before your side has played to the next trick) but you can't expose it.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 66 (Rubber Bridge): 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.

Quote

Law 66A (Duplicate Bridge): 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.

Sven is talking apples, mrdct is talking oranges.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-11, 22:44, said:

Sven is talking apples, mrdct is talking oranges.

In Duplicate each player turns his own played card down.
In Contract all four cards constituting one trick is collected by a player on the side winning the trick.
As Blackshoe writes I was referring to the laws on contract bridge which then seemed to be the applicable law here.

My reference is: http://web2.acbl.org...mbined_2004.pdf
in which Law 66A says nothing like "until he has turned his own card face down on the table"

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-August-11, 16:30, said:

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.

They also say that you should not make gratuitous comments, or communicate with partner by making extraneous remarks.

If you say "I am not thinking about this trick", you tell partner something about what you are thinking about. If you merely cause play to be suspended in a situation where it's unclear whether you are thinking about the just-quitted trick, the next trick, or the entire hand, you communicate less information.

Obviously, if you find yourself thinking in a situation where it might mislead an opponent, you should say something to prevent his being misled. However, if you have a choice, it's plainly better to follow Mjj23's approach.

[bluejak]

You are communicating with opponents to avoid misleading them. The fact that it tells partner something is tough, that's UI. Since the purpose is to avoid misleading it is not gratuitous.

Compare when opponents ask you a question about your methods. You do not say you should not answer because it communicates with partner, do you? But your answer tells partner something.

When you need to avoid misleading opponents you should do so and let partner worry about any UI problems that follow.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-August-12, 06:58, said:

You are communicating with opponents to avoid misleading them. The fact that it tells partner something is tough, that's UI. Since the purpose is to avoid misleading it is not gratuitous.

Compare when opponents ask you a question about your methods. You do not say you should not answer because it communicates with partner, do you? But your answer tells partner something.

When you need to avoid misleading opponents you should do so and let partner worry about any UI problems that follow.

Yes, that's what I said in my final paragraph.

My point was that when you have a choice between
- Keeping your played card face up whilst you think about whatever you want to think about, and
- Thinking at your turn to play and saying "I'm not thinking about this trick"
you should do the former, both because it avoids transmitting UI and because (arguably at least) the Laws require it.

[bluejak]

No, I do not believe you should, nor that the Laws require it. If thinking does not mislead you have a perfect right to think when you want.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-August-13, 15:43, said:

No, I do not believe you should, nor that the Laws require it. If thinking does not mislead you have a perfect right to think when you want.

But if you're not thinking about this trick, then it may mislead and you don't have a demonstratable bridge reason for thinking then. If you play and then think, while preventing people from playing to the next trick you are much less likely to mislead (you can't be thinking about play to the current trick) and you have a demonstratable bridge reason for thinking - vis to avoid misleading by thinking at your turn to play to a trick.

[bluejak]

So you are saying I am unethical if I think when I want, saying that I am not thinking about this trick? I find that upsetting, to say the least. I have no intention whatever of upsetting other people by holding a trick up unnecessarily so I can think at a time I do not want to, especially as I have never had an upset opponent when I have made such a disclaimer when thinking when I want: such people seem to be only on forums.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-August-14, 08:44, said:

So you are saying I am unethical if I think when I want, saying that I am not thinking about this trick? I find that upsetting, to say the least. I have no intention whatever of upsetting other people by holding a trick up unnecessarily so I can think at a time I do not want to, especially as I have never had an upset opponent when I have made such a disclaimer when thinking when I want: such people seem to be only on forums.

It's your partner who you might be upsetting, because you're giving him UI unnecessarily. An opponent is unlikely to complain unless your partner breaks the laws relating to that UI.

Of the three approaches:
(1) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying nothing
(2) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying "I'm not thinking about this trick"
(3) Refusing to quit trick 3 until you have finished thinking

2 is obviously better than 1, because it avoids MI. However, it does convey UI.
3 is obviously better than 2, because it avoids MI and conveys less UI.

[aguahombre]

What I really like about Andy's presentation (above) is that it does not even slightly hint at the "ethics" of the options available to the one who is thinking; rather the affect they might have on partner.

That is a distinction with a difference.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-August-14, 09:06, said:

It's your partner who you might be upsetting, because you're giving him UI unnecessarily. An opponent is unlikely to complain unless your partner breaks the laws relating to that UI.

Of the three approaches:
(1) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying nothing
(2) Thinking about the whole hand during trick 4, whilst saying "I'm not thinking about this trick"
(3) Refusing to quit trick 3 until you have finished thinking

2 is obviously better than 1, because it avoids MI. However, it does convey UI.
3 is obviously better than 2, because it avoids MI and conveys less UI.

Of course 2 is "obviously" better than 3 because I have every right to think when I want, and refusing to quit trick 3 to think at a time when I do not want is unnecessary and silly.

My partner's ethics are fine, thank-you, and she is not upset that I am ethical.

[campboy]

Honestly I don't see a difference between (2) and (3), at least in terms of information given. Both make it clear that you were thinking, but not about the current trick.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2011-August-16, 01:15, said:

Honestly I don't see a difference between (2) and (3), at least in terms of information given. Both make it clear that you were thinking, but not about the current trick.

With (3) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3, what to play to trick 4, or the whole hand.

With (2) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3 but you probably aren't. You definitely aren't thinking about trick 4.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-August-15, 18:31, said:

My partner's ethics are fine, thank-you, and she is not upset that I am ethical.

This sort of conversation tends to go more smoothly if people actually read what was written. I haven't suggested that either you or your partner behaves unethically.

[campboy]

gnasher, on 2011-August-16, 01:28, said:

With (3) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3, what to play to trick 4, or the whole hand.

With (2) you might be thinking about what was played to trick 3 but you probably aren't. You definitely aren't thinking about trick 4.

Ah, ok, I'd misunderstood. I thought (2) was thinking during trick *3*. I agree that if you know at the end of trick 3 that you need to think, you are better off doing so immediately (after all, how do you know you won't have to think about trick 4?).

[bluejak]

If I decide I need to think at the end of trick 3, I think at the end of trick 3.

If I decide I need to think during trick 4, I think during trick 4.

Strange, huh?

[semeai]

bluejak, on 2011-August-16, 06:04, said:

If I decide I need to think at the end of trick 3, I think at the end of trick 3.

If I decide I need to think during trick 4, I think during trick 4.

Strange, huh?

As implied in gnasher's post and more explicit in aguahombre's, this appears not to be a matter of ethics but of technique. By gnasher's reasoning, not doing your thinking early here is simply akin to missing a safety play: sometimes the extra UI you transmit will lead to a worse result for your side.