Help
Nobody rules on the basis of non-existent regulations.
Hesitations at trick one, third hand
#41
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,878
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2011-August-29, 21:12
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#42
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,529
- Joined: 2008-December-02
Posted 2011-August-30, 07:46
Cascade, on 2011-August-29, 14:16, said:
As far as I can tell essentially the same law applied in 1989 in Perth - the parenthetical comment in Law 73A2 "(however, sponsoring organizations ..." has been removed from the parentheses and become a sentence in its own right beginning "But Regulating Authorities ...".
In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.
By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.
Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.
It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.
I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".
In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.
Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:
1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks
2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.
Anything else is fraught with issues.
In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.
By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.
Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.
It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.
I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".
In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.
Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:
1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks
2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.
Anything else is fraught with issues.
Which Perth?
#43
- Group: Yellows
- Posts: 6,772
- Joined: 2003-July-22
- Gender:Male
- Location:New Zealand
- Interests:Juggling, Unicycling
Posted 2011-August-30, 14:01
cloa513, on 2011-August-30, 07:46, said:
Which Perth?
see above
Venice Cup, Perth, Australia 1989.
Wayne Burrows
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#44
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2011-August-31, 04:10
In theory a stop-procedure for the first trick (for example opening leader places a stop card, until he removes it his partner may not play a card, dummy can do whatever he wants) could solve hesitation issues similar to the stop-procedure of jumps. However, in practice they probably won't solve that much, especially if people don't always use their stop card...
At the moment it's accepted that you can think in the first trick, even with a singleton. If you always think, then there can't be any problems, but when you vary you create UI.
At the moment it's accepted that you can think in the first trick, even with a singleton. If you always think, then there can't be any problems, but when you vary you create UI.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#45
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 917
- Joined: 2009-July-29
- Gender:Male
Posted 2011-August-31, 09:54
Cascade, on 2011-August-29, 14:16, said:
As far as I can tell essentially the same law applied in 1989 in Perth - the parenthetical comment in Law 73A2 "(however, sponsoring organizations ..." has been removed from the parentheses and become a sentence in its own right beginning "But Regulating Authorities ...".
In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.
By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.
Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.
It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.
I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".
In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.
Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:
1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks
2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.
Anything else is fraught with issues.
In Perth in 1989 it was significant that no pause had been mandated "on the first trick". Therefore it would still seem significant today where there is no such mandate.
By mentioning an exception "on the first trick" this law is basically acknowledging that without that a regulated mandate "the first trick" should be treated the same as any other situation.
Under these conditions ruling as if there was a regulation when there is not is wrong.
It creates two classes of players - those who know about the quasi-regulation and those who don't. Therefore it puts some players at a disadvantage.
I am convinced that this quasi-regulation is open to abuse. Players will not pause every time. Their partner's will learn quicker than their opponents when they pause and when they don't. The quasi-regulation allows them to pause willy nilly with for example a singleton and then claim they were just thinking about the hand and thus potentially deceive a declarer. The EBU regulation which stops short of mandating a pause legitimizes the shonky deceptive practice of playing deceptively with a singleton - "third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause".
In other jurisdictions without a regulation I do not understand how ruling based on a non-existent regulation is anything except plain wrong.
Given the law the only two sensible options appear to be:
1. No regulation and treat trick one like every other trick in regard to tempo breaks
2. Mandate a pause and treat trick one differently.
Anything else is fraught with issues.
When I read this note I took pause, a rather lengthy pause. As I have long been an advocate of pauses for pre-auction, skip bids, and T1 play I was astonished by what I found after I spent a couple hours yesterday searching for ACBL regs and commentary on T1 pauses. I discovered zilch.
That revelation having been made I am inclined to concur with Mr. Burrows that to indemnify the player for a T1 pause an appropriate regulation currently is required. I applaud your language skill.
As such, the only avenue of solution for the player that does not want a large number of bad scores from play less skillful than he is capable of, or, from adjustments imposed by a punitive FLB is to adopt as his normal tempo [as provided by L73D1]- the tempo at T1 that he most of the time would need to make his plan. This of course would necessitate that SO create contests that afford 12 minutes per board rather than the customary 7 odd minutes.
That bridge authorities have declined for so long from establishing satisfactory regulations for pre-auction, skip bids, and T1 play suggests that they are unwilling to make them- in spite of the benefits that are derived every board from the problems of the player that are solved.