Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What should I do?
68 views
Skip to first unread message
dak...@aol.com
May 24, 2012, 6:57:46 AM5/24/12
to
Playing at a regional, opponents note my partner fidget
with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
the singleton he had.
Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
I saw his fingers were tensed. Relaxed in the timing
I take to look at his play.
Should I have corrected TD/declarer in their assertion of
"unethical" so exposing my partner's right to keep his
condition private?
Or let bridge "zero tolerance" not be enforced?
TD rules "didn't say 'cheater' so no violation".
I claimed no unethical behavior, but not the why.
with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
the singleton he had.
Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
I saw his fingers were tensed. Relaxed in the timing
I take to look at his play.
Should I have corrected TD/declarer in their assertion of
"unethical" so exposing my partner's right to keep his
condition private?
Or let bridge "zero tolerance" not be enforced?
TD rules "didn't say 'cheater' so no violation".
I claimed no unethical behavior, but not the why.
blackshoe
May 24, 2012, 9:36:12 AM5/24/12
to
Thomas Dehn
May 24, 2012, 9:55:07 AM5/24/12
to
Declarer is rightly offended by your
partners unintentional coffee housing.
Your partner is not allowed, as he did here,
to move around his cards in a way that
creates the false impression that he holds
multiple cards in a suit where he holds a singleton.
The standard which applies here is "could have known".
If your partner could have known that the way he
moves around the cards misleads declarer, and he has
no demonstrable bridge reason for doing so, the
TD shall award an adjusted score (if there was damage).
Any actual intent to mislead is not required for
an adjusted score.
A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
by developing a different approach to playing his
cards which does not lead to this situation.
Similarly, consider a player with limited eyesight.
His partner puts down the 2D bidding card, and he misreads it
as 3D, and does not alert. That is MI. The fact that the
player did not alert 2D because he read it as 3D does
not relieve the player of his obligation to alert an alertable
2D bid.
Thomas
Adam Beneschan
May 24, 2012, 10:42:51 AM5/24/12
to
-- Adam
Mark Brader
May 24, 2012, 11:38:58 AM5/24/12
to
"Dake":
ability to follow the normal procedures of the type of bridge they choose
to play (i.e. face-to-face or online), then they have no practical hope
of keeping it private, so the concern for privacy is misplaced.
>> I saw his fingers were tensed.
>> Relaxed in the timing I take to look at his play.
That last sentence is incomprehensible, but it sounds as though Dake
might be saying "From looking at his fingers I decided he was having
a petit mal seizure and therefore I disregarded his mannerism."
If that *is* the meaning, and it was based on private knowledge of
partner's epilepsy, then it certainly sounds to me as like improper
behavior on Dake's part.
--
Mark Brader | Of course, we'd have to flatten both the iceberg and Wyoming,
Toronto | and that would change what area Wyoming covers, but that's
m...@vex.net | all right since I've never been to Wyoming. --Tony Cooper
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> Playing at a regional, opponents note my partner fidget
>> with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
>> the singleton he had.
>> Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
>> Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
Adam Beneschan:
>> with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
>> the singleton he had.
>> Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
>> Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
> This sounds like a real problem to me--as Thomas said, the opponents
> were misled and there's a case that they were damaged, but on the other
> hand your partner's privacy is an issue.
It seems to me that if someone has a medical condition that affects their
> were misled and there's a case that they were damaged, but on the other
> hand your partner's privacy is an issue.
ability to follow the normal procedures of the type of bridge they choose
to play (i.e. face-to-face or online), then they have no practical hope
of keeping it private, so the concern for privacy is misplaced.
>> I saw his fingers were tensed.
>> Relaxed in the timing I take to look at his play.
might be saying "From looking at his fingers I decided he was having
a petit mal seizure and therefore I disregarded his mannerism."
If that *is* the meaning, and it was based on private knowledge of
partner's epilepsy, then it certainly sounds to me as like improper
behavior on Dake's part.
--
Mark Brader | Of course, we'd have to flatten both the iceberg and Wyoming,
Toronto | and that would change what area Wyoming covers, but that's
m...@vex.net | all right since I've never been to Wyoming. --Tony Cooper
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 12:54:58 PM5/24/12
to
In article <a26sts...@mid.individual.net>,
allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
like these.
For instance, when playing with people with impaired vision, it's not
uncommon for the players to speak their bids when they pull bidding
cards, and to say the cards they're playing as they play them.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
> to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
> by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
> fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
> by developing a different approach to playing his
> cards which does not lead to this situation.
Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
> to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
> by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
> fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
> by developing a different approach to playing his
> cards which does not lead to this situation.
allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
like these.
For instance, when playing with people with impaired vision, it's not
uncommon for the players to speak their bids when they pull bidding
cards, and to say the cards they're playing as they play them.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Kenny McCormack
May 24, 2012, 2:05:11 PM5/24/12
to
In article <barmar-78DD03....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Indeed - I'll remember the next time I'm playing against the blind guy at
my club to tell him that Thomas Dehn of the Usenet says I don't have to give
him any special considerations.
But I suppose the real point is that anyone pissy enough to try to enforce
this stupid "card fidgeting" nonsense (of which, thankfully, there are
precious few) would probably be enough of an a-hole to not give the blind
guy a break either.
--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...
my club to tell him that Thomas Dehn of the Usenet says I don't have to give
him any special considerations.
But I suppose the real point is that anyone pissy enough to try to enforce
this stupid "card fidgeting" nonsense (of which, thankfully, there are
precious few) would probably be enough of an a-hole to not give the blind
guy a break either.
--
Just for a change of pace, this sig is *not* an obscure reference to
comp.lang.c...
tivojohn
May 24, 2012, 3:32:32 PM5/24/12
to
another player of unethical behavior, regardless of the exact
wording. It poisons the atmosphere of the game for all of us.
A call to the director (or discussion in private with the director) is
the "in process" way of requesting help.
-- john
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 3:48:00 PM5/24/12
to
Barry Margolin skrev:
> Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
> applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
> like these.
Hear hear!
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
> Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
> applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
> like these.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 3:50:16 PM5/24/12
to
Adam Beneschan skrev:
> This sounds like a real problem to me--
It sounds to me as if the problem is created through the secrecy
and that the player himself is the only one to solve it by
disclosing his condition.
> This sounds like a real problem to me--
and that the player himself is the only one to solve it by
disclosing his condition.
Thomas Dehn
May 24, 2012, 3:54:36 PM5/24/12
to
On 05/24/2012 06:54 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article<a26sts...@mid.individual.net>,
> Thomas Dehn<thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
>> to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
>> by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
>> fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
>> by developing a different approach to playing his
>> cards which does not lead to this situation.
>
> Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
> applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
> like these.
That is not draconian. It is the normal rectification when
> In article<a26sts...@mid.individual.net>,
> Thomas Dehn<thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>> A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
>> to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
>> by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
>> fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
>> by developing a different approach to playing his
>> cards which does not lead to this situation.
>
> Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
> applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
> like these.
opponents are misled or misinformed.
> For instance, when playing with people with impaired vision, it's not
> uncommon for the players to speak their bids when they pull bidding
> cards, and to say the cards they're playing as they play them.
However, it is up to the handicapped player to initiate such
an approach. If the handicapped player decides to keep his
handicap a secret, and thus misleads opponents, such as by the
way he plays a card in the OP's example, or by giving MI
as in my example, then the corresponding laws need to be applied.
A handicapped player is not entitled to extra good scores
from misleading or misinforming opponents,
and the handicapped player's opponents do not deserve extra
bad scores when the handicapped player misleads or misinforms them.
Besides, the TD should not have to read a player's mind.
In the case of the player with an impaired vision, the director
should not have to decide whether
o the player just or forgot to alert
or
o the player did not see the bid correctly
or
o the player intentionally did not alert (because he
knows he can get away with it)
Thomas
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 4:39:21 PM5/24/12
to
Thomas Dehn skrev:
> Declarer is rightly offended by your
> partners unintentional coffee housing.
I don't understand "unintentional coffee housing".
> Declarer is rightly offended by your
> partners unintentional coffee housing.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 5:16:57 PM5/24/12
to
In article <4fbe90c6$0$290$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
the post. You can't have it both ways: if you want opponents to give
consideration to your problem, you need to let them know about it.
Although I think you might have to be pretty clueless not to be able to
recognize someone dealing with arthritis or Parkinson's. The tremors
are frequent and pretty distinctive, different from typical hesitations.
I've played an opponent whose hands are always shaking -- I've not asked
him what his condition is, but it's obviously chronic and looks kind of
like Parkinson's.
But maybe if it's early in the player's condition, it might not be so
frequent and obvious.
Bertel Lund Hansen <kanon...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Adam Beneschan skrev:
>
> > This sounds like a real problem to me--
>
> It sounds to me as if the problem is created through the secrecy
> and that the player himself is the only one to solve it by
> disclosing his condition.
Yes, I think so. I missed the bit about privacy the first time I read
> Adam Beneschan skrev:
>
> > This sounds like a real problem to me--
>
> It sounds to me as if the problem is created through the secrecy
> and that the player himself is the only one to solve it by
> disclosing his condition.
the post. You can't have it both ways: if you want opponents to give
consideration to your problem, you need to let them know about it.
Although I think you might have to be pretty clueless not to be able to
recognize someone dealing with arthritis or Parkinson's. The tremors
are frequent and pretty distinctive, different from typical hesitations.
I've played an opponent whose hands are always shaking -- I've not asked
him what his condition is, but it's obviously chronic and looks kind of
like Parkinson's.
But maybe if it's early in the player's condition, it might not be so
frequent and obvious.
Travis Crump
May 24, 2012, 5:57:05 PM5/24/12
to
On 05/24/2012 09:55 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 12:57 PM, dak...@aol.com wrote:
>> Playing at a regional, opponents note my partner fidget
>> with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
>> the singleton he had.
>> Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
>> Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
>> I saw his fingers were tensed. Relaxed in the timing
>> I take to look at his play.
>> Should I have corrected TD/declarer in their assertion of
>> "unethical" so exposing my partner's right to keep his
>> condition private?
>> Or let bridge "zero tolerance" not be enforced?
>> TD rules "didn't say 'cheater' so no violation".
>> I claimed no unethical behavior, but not the why.
>
> L73 D and L73F apply.
>
But not 73D1 or 74C5?
> On 05/24/2012 12:57 PM, dak...@aol.com wrote:
>> Playing at a regional, opponents note my partner fidget
>> with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
>> the singleton he had.
>> Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
>> Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
>> I saw his fingers were tensed. Relaxed in the timing
>> I take to look at his play.
>> Should I have corrected TD/declarer in their assertion of
>> "unethical" so exposing my partner's right to keep his
>> condition private?
>> Or let bridge "zero tolerance" not be enforced?
>> TD rules "didn't say 'cheater' so no violation".
>> I claimed no unethical behavior, but not the why.
>
> L73 D and L73F apply.
>
What's the point of saying inferences are taken at your own risk if you
are then going to proceed to protect people who take incorrect
inferences. There is no mention of needing a 'bridge reason' in 73D
just that you can't intentionally try to mislead. So any reason would
seem to suffice.
It should also be noted that OP didn't say there was a long hesitation,
but instead it was the manner of how he selected his card that bothered
the opponents, but 74C5 says you shouldn't be trying to see how people
remove cards from their hand.
Fred.
May 24, 2012, 7:04:51 PM5/24/12
to
that violations of the rules are deliberate are saying
something about their own tendencies. And that is what I
believe you are saying when you say a rule violation is
unethical.
handicap is a deliberate cheat? Inadvertent production of
UI is usually not even a rules violation. The constraint
is on the recipient of the UI.
I don't think mention of the handicap should have been
necessary to
coffee-housing is a violation of the rules. Assuming
that this is the case the opponents are entitled to redress
for the rule violation. They are not entitled to publicly
suggest that the violator is a deliberate cheat, handicap
or no. Their correct action is to call the director. If
they have real evidence that the action is deliberate they
can present that evidence to the director without using the
words "deliberate" or "unethical" and let the director draw
the conclusions.
I have always suspected that most people who "know"
violations are deliberate a saying something about their own
proclivities.
Fred.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 7:14:05 PM5/24/12
to
In article <6a9584ae-6c03-4cad...@googlegroups.com>,
a mistake.
And he didn't say anything about UI, he said MI. Production of MI *is*
a rules violation.
From the perspective of the opponents, it's similar to what happens when
you misremember your agreements and alert or explain incorrectly as a
result. It's not deliberate, but the opponents still received an
incorrect explanation of your agreements.
Problems like this are why players with severe vision problems often ask
everyone to speak their bids and plays.
"Fred." <rollsc...@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:55:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> > Similarly, consider a player with limited eyesight.
> > His partner puts down the 2D bidding card, and he misreads it
> > as 3D, and does not alert. That is MI. The fact that the
> > player did not alert 2D because he read it as 3D does
> > not relieve the player of his obligation to alert an alertable
> > 2D bid.
> >
> >
> > Thomas
>
> So, are you suggesting that any person playing with such a
> handicap is a deliberate cheat? Inadvertent production of
> UI is usually not even a rules violation. The constraint
> is on the recipient of the UI.
He didn't say it was deliberate. Because of his vision problem, he made
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:55:07 AM UTC-4, Thomas Dehn wrote:
> > Similarly, consider a player with limited eyesight.
> > His partner puts down the 2D bidding card, and he misreads it
> > as 3D, and does not alert. That is MI. The fact that the
> > player did not alert 2D because he read it as 3D does
> > not relieve the player of his obligation to alert an alertable
> > 2D bid.
> >
> >
> > Thomas
>
> So, are you suggesting that any person playing with such a
> handicap is a deliberate cheat? Inadvertent production of
> UI is usually not even a rules violation. The constraint
> is on the recipient of the UI.
a mistake.
And he didn't say anything about UI, he said MI. Production of MI *is*
a rules violation.
From the perspective of the opponents, it's similar to what happens when
you misremember your agreements and alert or explain incorrectly as a
result. It's not deliberate, but the opponents still received an
incorrect explanation of your agreements.
Problems like this are why players with severe vision problems often ask
everyone to speak their bids and plays.
derek
May 24, 2012, 8:31:26 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 1:54 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <a26stsF1s...@mid.individual.net>,
the disability exists. So a player in this situation gets two
choices: either accept the accusation, or profess his condition. You
can't have it both ways.
> In article <a26stsF1s...@mid.individual.net>,
> Thomas Dehn <thomas-use...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
> > to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
> > by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
> > fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
> > by developing a different approach to playing his
> > cards which does not lead to this situation.
>
> Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
> applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
> like these.
>
> For instance, when playing with people with impaired vision, it's not
> uncommon for the players to speak their bids when they pull bidding
> cards, and to say the cards they're playing as they play them.
Sure, but you can't make allowance for disability unless you _know_
>
> > A disability is not a bridge reason, and it is up
> > to your partner to avoid this problem, for example
> > by informing opponents before the round "I have a problem with my
> > fingers, and I sometimes pull the wrong cards" or
> > by developing a different approach to playing his
> > cards which does not lead to this situation.
>
> Most of us are compassionate, reasonable human beings, and we make
> allowances for other people's disabilities. I think you're cruel in
> applying the Laws in a draconian fashion against players with handicaps
> like these.
>
> For instance, when playing with people with impaired vision, it's not
> uncommon for the players to speak their bids when they pull bidding
> cards, and to say the cards they're playing as they play them.
the disability exists. So a player in this situation gets two
choices: either accept the accusation, or profess his condition. You
can't have it both ways.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 9:14:24 PM5/24/12
to
In article
<6fdbccfb-8c83-4d6e...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
I said exactly the same thing in a later followup to my post, didn't I?
<6fdbccfb-8c83-4d6e...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 25, 2012, 3:21:45 AM5/25/12
to
derek skrev:
> Sure, but you can't make allowance for disability unless you _know_
> the disability exists. So a player in this situation gets two
> choices: either accept the accusation, or profess his condition. You
> can't have it both ways.
I don't agree though I wrote (and think) that the player himself
ought to do something. But he shouldn't accept accusations just
because he has fiddled with his cards. No way!
He should of course gracefully accept to be instructed by the TD
about proper procedure.
> Sure, but you can't make allowance for disability unless you _know_
> the disability exists. So a player in this situation gets two
> choices: either accept the accusation, or profess his condition. You
> can't have it both ways.
ought to do something. But he shouldn't accept accusations just
because he has fiddled with his cards. No way!
He should of course gracefully accept to be instructed by the TD
about proper procedure.
Thomas Dehn
May 25, 2012, 9:31:13 AM5/25/12
to
On 05/24/2012 11:57 PM, Travis Crump wrote:
> On 05/24/2012 09:55 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> On 05/24/2012 12:57 PM, dak...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Playing at a regional, opponents note my partner fidget
>>> with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
>>> the singleton he had.
>>> Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
>>> Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
>>> I saw his fingers were tensed. Relaxed in the timing
>>> I take to look at his play.
>>> Should I have corrected TD/declarer in their assertion of
>>> "unethical" so exposing my partner's right to keep his
>>> condition private?
>>> Or let bridge "zero tolerance" not be enforced?
>>> TD rules "didn't say 'cheater' so no violation".
>>> I claimed no unethical behavior, but not the why.
>>
>> L73 D and L73F apply.
>>
>
> But not 73D1 or 74C5?
73D1 is a subset of 73D.
> On 05/24/2012 09:55 AM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> On 05/24/2012 12:57 PM, dak...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Playing at a regional, opponents note my partner fidget
>>> with 2 cards in his fingers. Push 2 back, then select
>>> the singleton he had.
>>> Declarer rants about "that's unethical"
>>> Private detail: partner has petit mal epilepsy.
>>> I saw his fingers were tensed. Relaxed in the timing
>>> I take to look at his play.
>>> Should I have corrected TD/declarer in their assertion of
>>> "unethical" so exposing my partner's right to keep his
>>> condition private?
>>> Or let bridge "zero tolerance" not be enforced?
>>> TD rules "didn't say 'cheater' so no violation".
>>> I claimed no unethical behavior, but not the why.
>>
>> L73 D and L73F apply.
>>
>
> But not 73D1 or 74C5?
> What's the point of saying inferences are taken at your own risk if you
> are then going to proceed to protect people who take incorrect
> inferences. There is no mention of needing a 'bridge reason' in 73D
> just that you can't intentionally try to mislead. So any reason would
> seem to suffice.
>
> It should also be noted that OP didn't say there was a long hesitation,
> but instead it was the manner of how he selected his card that bothered
> the opponents, but 74C5 says you shouldn't be trying to see how people
> remove cards from their hand.
draw conclusions such as "he pulled the 3rd card from the left, thus he
must hold two more spades". If a player pulls one or more cards, puts
them back into his hand (without anybody having seen the cards),
and then plays a different card, opponents are allowed to conclude
that he could have played a different card to this trick.
Anything you notice accidentally without paying direct attention to how
opponents play their cards is AI. Anything you gain from closely
watching how opponents play their cards is UI.
The key points from L73 are
o was there a bridge reason for the variation in tempo or manner?
and
o and "could [the player] have known" that his
variation in tempo and manner might mislead opponents
If there was a bridge reason for the variation in tempo or manner,
then "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner
in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.
Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk." from L73D1 applies. But only then.
When a player holds a singleton, such as in the scenario
described by the OP, there is no bridge reason to
do anything other than play that singleton in tempo. The current
debate on the law is whether on trick one, when the defender
not on lead has a singleton in the suit led, is allowed to plan
the defense there, or still must play the singleton in tempo.
The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
singleton then must be played in tempo.
Generally, if a player, when holding a singleton, pulls out another
card before playing the singleton, I'd expect the director to proceed
as follows:
o director acquires all the facts
o the director explains the obligations to the player
o As there is no bridge reason to do anything other than play that
singleton in tempo, there will be a tendency to adjust the score if
the variation in tempo or manner caused damage (see 2007 St. Louis
Non-NABC+ Appeal #2 for a case where the variation in tempo did
not cause the damage)
o if the player continues to "frequently" pull out other cards before
playing singletons, the director will consider serious
penalties, such as additional PPs, and the player
might be reported to the national authority, which then
might inflict additional penalties.
Thomas
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 25, 2012, 9:41:37 AM5/25/12
to
Thomas Dehn skrev:
> When a player holds a singleton, such as in the scenario
> described by the OP, there is no bridge reason to
> do anything other than play that singleton in tempo. The current
> debate on the law is whether on trick one, when the defender
> not on lead has a singleton in the suit led, is allowed to plan
> the defense there, or still must play the singleton in tempo.
> The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
> singleton then must be played in tempo.
The defender should never be put in that position. Declarer
should plan his play after the opening lead is faced, and the
defender of course does the same.
But I will go further:
If he has not finished planning when declarer plays from dummy,
he is entitled to continue before playing to the trick -
singleton or not.
> When a player holds a singleton, such as in the scenario
> described by the OP, there is no bridge reason to
> do anything other than play that singleton in tempo. The current
> debate on the law is whether on trick one, when the defender
> not on lead has a singleton in the suit led, is allowed to plan
> the defense there, or still must play the singleton in tempo.
> The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
> singleton then must be played in tempo.
should plan his play after the opening lead is faced, and the
defender of course does the same.
But I will go further:
If he has not finished planning when declarer plays from dummy,
he is entitled to continue before playing to the trick -
singleton or not.
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 11:02:45 AM5/25/12
to
In article <a29ft1...@mid.individual.net>,
It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such
thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play.
However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time
third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and
no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause. For example,
if third hand has a singleton and declarer plays quickly from dummy, it
is entirely legitimate for third hand to consider the hand generally.
Law 73A2 even allows RAs to mandate a pause at trick 1, but the above
doesn't go so far. But it does give guidance to determining what is
considered "undue hesitation" -- the Laws themselves don't go into this
detail.
Thomas Dehn <thomas...@arcor.de> wrote:
> The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
> singleton then must be played in tempo.
EBU Orange Book 7F2:
> The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
> singleton then must be played in tempo.
It is normal for third hand to think before playing to trick one. Such
thought is normally while declarer is thinking about his play.
However, sometimes declarer plays quickly from dummy. At such a time
third hand may legitimately think whatever his holding in the suit, and
no inference can be or should be taken from such a pause. For example,
if third hand has a singleton and declarer plays quickly from dummy, it
is entirely legitimate for third hand to consider the hand generally.
Law 73A2 even allows RAs to mandate a pause at trick 1, but the above
doesn't go so far. But it does give guidance to determining what is
considered "undue hesitation" -- the Laws themselves don't go into this
detail.
derek
May 25, 2012, 12:07:53 PM5/25/12
to
> <6fdbccfb-8c83-4d6e-b493-fe040a6c0...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
You did, but I hadn't seen it yet.
derek
May 25, 2012, 12:10:05 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 4:21 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
cards, either. So even if the opponent says nothing, he has to realize
that the opponent may be _thinking_ badly of him.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> > Sure, but you can't make allowance for disability unless you _know_
> > the disability exists. So a player in this situation gets two
> > choices: either accept the accusation, or profess his condition. You
> > can't have it both ways.
>
> I don't agree though I wrote (and think) that the player himself
> ought to do something. But he shouldn't accept accusations just
> because he has fiddled with his cards. No way!
You are right, of course, but normally he shouldn't fiddle with his
>
> > Sure, but you can't make allowance for disability unless you _know_
> > the disability exists. So a player in this situation gets two
> > choices: either accept the accusation, or profess his condition. You
> > can't have it both ways.
>
> I don't agree though I wrote (and think) that the player himself
> ought to do something. But he shouldn't accept accusations just
> because he has fiddled with his cards. No way!
cards, either. So even if the opponent says nothing, he has to realize
that the opponent may be _thinking_ badly of him.
Fred.
May 25, 2012, 12:27:39 PM5/25/12
to
in response to the opponent's description of the action
as unethical. Simple infractions should be dealt with
without taking offense on either side.
Fred.
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 2:36:23 PM5/25/12
to
In article <6e86ff86-df79-4003...@googlegroups.com>,
(for which a synonym is "offense"), not that the opponent felt
personally insulted.
> Perhaps I read too much into the words "rightly offended"
> in response to the opponent's description of the action
> as unethical. Simple infractions should be dealt with
> without taking offense on either side.
I took it to mean that he felt the player had committed an infraction
> in response to the opponent's description of the action
> as unethical. Simple infractions should be dealt with
> without taking offense on either side.
(for which a synonym is "offense"), not that the opponent felt
personally insulted.
Mark Brader
May 25, 2012, 5:48:06 PM5/25/12
to
Thomas Dehn:
The Regulating Authority is allowed to require such a pause under
Law 73A2. But if they don't, then why do you think declarer "should"
help the opponents in this way even if his play at trick 1 happens
to be automatic?
> But I will go further:
> If he has not finished planning when declarer plays from dummy,
> he is entitled to continue before playing to the trick -
> singleton or not.
I have no problem with that as a policy under 73A2, and I don't have
a problem with interpreting it as a "uniform manner" if the defender
consistently hesitates at trick 1 when declarer plays quickly from
Dummy. But I don't think the Laws currently require that interpretation.
--
Mark Brader, "It is impossible. Solution follows..."
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- Richard Heathfield
>> When a player holds a singleton, such as in the scenario
>> described by the OP, there is no bridge reason to
>> do anything other than play that singleton in tempo. The current
>> debate on the law is whether on trick one, when the defender
>> not on lead has a singleton in the suit led, is allowed to plan
>> the defense there, or still must play the singleton in tempo.
>> The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
>> singleton then must be played in tempo.
Bertel Lund Hansen:
>> described by the OP, there is no bridge reason to
>> do anything other than play that singleton in tempo. The current
>> debate on the law is whether on trick one, when the defender
>> not on lead has a singleton in the suit led, is allowed to plan
>> the defense there, or still must play the singleton in tempo.
>> The majority opinion seems to be that even on trick one, the
>> singleton then must be played in tempo.
> The defender should never be put in that position. Declarer
> should plan his play after the opening lead is faced...
The Regulating Authority is allowed to require such a pause under
Law 73A2. But if they don't, then why do you think declarer "should"
help the opponents in this way even if his play at trick 1 happens
to be automatic?
> But I will go further:
> If he has not finished planning when declarer plays from dummy,
> he is entitled to continue before playing to the trick -
> singleton or not.
a problem with interpreting it as a "uniform manner" if the defender
consistently hesitates at trick 1 when declarer plays quickly from
Dummy. But I don't think the Laws currently require that interpretation.
--
Mark Brader, "It is impossible. Solution follows..."
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- Richard Heathfield
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 26, 2012, 1:23:42 AM5/26/12
to
> Bertel Lund Hansen:
>> The defender should never be put in that position. Declarer
>> should plan his play after the opening lead is faced...
> The Regulating Authority is allowed to require such a pause under
> Law 73A2. But if they don't, then why do you think declarer "should"
> help the opponents in this way even if his play at trick 1 happens
> to be automatic?
as a fundamental rule, and I have heard it stressed by different
people many times. But you are right that it is not a requirement
of the law.
The Danish trounament rules require a minimum of 10 seconds pause
before playing from the dummy.
>> But I will go further:
>> If he has not finished planning when declarer plays from dummy,
>> he is entitled to continue before playing to the trick -
>> singleton or not.
> I have no problem with that as a policy under 73A2, and I don't have
> a problem with interpreting it as a "uniform manner" if the defender
> consistently hesitates at trick 1 when declarer plays quickly from
> Dummy. But I don't think the Laws currently require that interpretation.
thought. When I am called in such cases, I always explain that a
player may think as much as he needs within reasonable limits.
The law does not punish the player who takes a pause for thought.
On the contrary, it deals with the partner's reaction if he uses
UI. So the law acknowledges that pauses for thought exist. The
pause before one's first play of a card is just one case.
Dave Flower
May 26, 2012, 5:39:05 AM5/26/12
to
Such matters should be dealt with by the Director in private
Dave Flower
Kenny McCormack
May 26, 2012, 10:42:09 AM5/26/12
to
In article <8ba1c74e-3057-4868...@googlegroups.com>,
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
director call is far worse and more insulting than the original offense
could ever be.
--
First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.
- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
...
>I agree strongly, your partner should probably have said something like
>'sorry no problem', but Declarer by using the word 'unethical' was a far
>more serious offender.
And therein lies the whole problem with "ZT". In all cases, making a ZT
>'sorry no problem', but Declarer by using the word 'unethical' was a far
>more serious offender.
director call is far worse and more insulting than the original offense
could ever be.
--
First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.
- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -
Thomas Dehn
May 27, 2012, 2:47:48 PM5/27/12
to
> Assuming
> that this is the case the opponents are entitled to redress
> for the rule violation.
> They are not entitled to publicly
> suggest that the violator is a deliberate cheat, handicap
> or no. Their correct action is to call the director. If
> they have real evidence that the action is deliberate they
> can present that evidence to the director without using the
> words "deliberate" or "unethical" and let the director draw
> the conclusions.
rather the one he intended to play, then puts that different
card back into his hand to play the card he actually intended
to play, should indicate to opponents that he unintentionally
pulled the wrong card. Not doing *that*, especially when
holding a singleton, is, well, how am I supposed
to call that?
Thomas
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 27, 2012, 4:03:14 PM5/27/12
to
Thomas Dehn skrev:
> A player who unintentionally pulls a different card
> rather the one he intended to play, then puts that different
> card back into his hand to play the card he actually intended
> to play, should indicate to opponents that he unintentionally
> pulled the wrong card. Not doing *that*, especially when
> holding a singleton, is, well, how am I supposed
> to call that?
Normal?
I find no requirement in the laws that a player should entertain
the opponents and his partner with what goes through his mind.
Only in one instance is it necessary, and in those cases the
reaction usually is automatic:
What? That's not what I wanted to bid!
when he sees another card before him on the table than he thought
he placed there.
> A player who unintentionally pulls a different card
> rather the one he intended to play, then puts that different
> card back into his hand to play the card he actually intended
> to play, should indicate to opponents that he unintentionally
> pulled the wrong card. Not doing *that*, especially when
> holding a singleton, is, well, how am I supposed
> to call that?
I find no requirement in the laws that a player should entertain
the opponents and his partner with what goes through his mind.
Only in one instance is it necessary, and in those cases the
reaction usually is automatic:
What? That's not what I wanted to bid!
when he sees another card before him on the table than he thought
he placed there.
Stu Goodgold
May 27, 2012, 6:39:24 PM5/27/12
to
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Fred.
May 27, 2012, 9:06:16 PM5/27/12
to
it is intolerant. No longer can you call the
TD for the irregularity, mention the use of
"unethical", and have the opponents receive a
quiet explanation of the difference between
this and an unintentional violation and why
they shouldn't throw such accusations around.
Now you have to either let things slide or
bring out the big hammer. I don't think
either is really healthy.
Fred.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 28, 2012, 4:33:40 AM5/28/12
to
Stu Goodgold skrev:
> If you do nothing after fumbling, you are violating Law 73D2:
> misleading an opponent by.... "hesitating before playing a
> singleton".
Am I? You are a harsh man. The full wording is:
2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of
remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play
(as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in
which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation
from correct procedure.
You say that fumbling is an attempt to mislead the opponents. I
disagree.
I *risk* misleading the opponents, and they are entitled to call
the TD, but that is all. Of course fumbling should be avoided,
but it happens.
> At least by making a remark that you had a mechanical problem
> with playing a card, you remove the impression that are
> violating this law.
Maybe. I might give the impression that I am trying to guard
myself against a TD call, mightn't I? Impressions can be hard to
control.
And I have fumbled in spite of the fact that I have no mechanical
problem. I played with a partner for the first time, and I went
for the bidding box for my opening bid when I suddenly remembered
that we played strong NT's so I retracted my hand - but the
movement was obvious for both partner and opponents.
Do you think that I should have explained that I had forgotten
that we did not play NT's as 12-14?
> If you do nothing after fumbling, you are violating Law 73D2:
> misleading an opponent by.... "hesitating before playing a
> singleton".
2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of
remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play
(as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in
which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation
from correct procedure.
You say that fumbling is an attempt to mislead the opponents. I
disagree.
I *risk* misleading the opponents, and they are entitled to call
the TD, but that is all. Of course fumbling should be avoided,
but it happens.
> At least by making a remark that you had a mechanical problem
> with playing a card, you remove the impression that are
> violating this law.
myself against a TD call, mightn't I? Impressions can be hard to
control.
And I have fumbled in spite of the fact that I have no mechanical
problem. I played with a partner for the first time, and I went
for the bidding box for my opening bid when I suddenly remembered
that we played strong NT's so I retracted my hand - but the
movement was obvious for both partner and opponents.
Do you think that I should have explained that I had forgotten
that we did not play NT's as 12-14?
Kenny McCormack
May 29, 2012, 6:23:52 PM5/29/12
to
In article <e2262468-38c4-49fe...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
tivojohn <john.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
you know calls the director) basically that - an accusation that an op has
done something "wrong". Now, the point, of course, is that we try very hard
to dance around the issue - and say that, well, we are not accusing you are
being "unethical" (and we're certainly, certainly, certainly, certainly not
accusing you of "cheating"), but isn't that what it usually boils down to.
Obvious exceptions of course: lead out of turn, revoke, etc - those
mechanical errors are not accusations of "unethical"-ness.
But most other things are - either an accusation of "unethical"-ness or, if
not that, then a ZT violation - i.e, doing something "not nice/bad". So,
really, every time you (or someone you know) calls the director, you are
doing something "not nice/bad".
Anyway, somewhat incidentally, but also to get this (somewhat) back on
track, what do people here think of the practice of a director making a
silent ruling, without telling the guilty ones that he has done so? Here's
the case-in-point: Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, we bid up to
2S, which we were going to make, and the opps egregiously coffee-housed
their way into 3C (having been silent up 'til then) - which either makes or
goes down 1, but in any case, a great result for them. The facts were not
at all in doubt, and we called the director and layed out our case, which
was absolutely clear-cut. Two things immediately became clear:
1) The directory obviously wanted to rule in our favor.
2) ... except that he didn't want to upset the nice, young, female, opps.
His solution: No ruling at the time - just go on to the next board sorta
thing. At the end of the game as they were scoring it up, I happened to
check back and saw that the score on that board had been quietly changed
back to +110 (our way). It was kind of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge sorta
thing - I felt that justice had been served, but, I am quite convinced, he
never told the opps what he had done. And, in fact, I'd have never known if
I hadn't specifically checked back in.
This seems to avoid the problem of accusing anybody of anything, and note
that it's kinda win/win - in that at the table it looked like we had lost
the battle (since their score stood), but in the end, we got ours.
--
One of the best lines I've heard lately:
Obama could cure cancer tomorrow, and the Republicans would be
complaining that he had ruined the pharmaceutical business.
(Heard on Stephanie Miller = but the sad thing is that there is an awful lot
of direct truth in it. We've constructed an economy in which eliminating
cancer would be a horrible disaster. There are many other such examples.)
tivojohn <john.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>I think it is highly inappropriate for any player to publicly accuse
>another player of unethical behavior, regardless of the exact
>wording. It poisons the atmosphere of the game for all of us.
But isn't just about every director call (i.e., every time you or someone
>another player of unethical behavior, regardless of the exact
>wording. It poisons the atmosphere of the game for all of us.
you know calls the director) basically that - an accusation that an op has
done something "wrong". Now, the point, of course, is that we try very hard
to dance around the issue - and say that, well, we are not accusing you are
being "unethical" (and we're certainly, certainly, certainly, certainly not
accusing you of "cheating"), but isn't that what it usually boils down to.
Obvious exceptions of course: lead out of turn, revoke, etc - those
mechanical errors are not accusations of "unethical"-ness.
But most other things are - either an accusation of "unethical"-ness or, if
not that, then a ZT violation - i.e, doing something "not nice/bad". So,
really, every time you (or someone you know) calls the director, you are
doing something "not nice/bad".
Anyway, somewhat incidentally, but also to get this (somewhat) back on
track, what do people here think of the practice of a director making a
silent ruling, without telling the guilty ones that he has done so? Here's
the case-in-point: Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, we bid up to
2S, which we were going to make, and the opps egregiously coffee-housed
their way into 3C (having been silent up 'til then) - which either makes or
goes down 1, but in any case, a great result for them. The facts were not
at all in doubt, and we called the director and layed out our case, which
was absolutely clear-cut. Two things immediately became clear:
1) The directory obviously wanted to rule in our favor.
2) ... except that he didn't want to upset the nice, young, female, opps.
His solution: No ruling at the time - just go on to the next board sorta
thing. At the end of the game as they were scoring it up, I happened to
check back and saw that the score on that board had been quietly changed
back to +110 (our way). It was kind of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge sorta
thing - I felt that justice had been served, but, I am quite convinced, he
never told the opps what he had done. And, in fact, I'd have never known if
I hadn't specifically checked back in.
This seems to avoid the problem of accusing anybody of anything, and note
that it's kinda win/win - in that at the table it looked like we had lost
the battle (since their score stood), but in the end, we got ours.
--
One of the best lines I've heard lately:
Obama could cure cancer tomorrow, and the Republicans would be
complaining that he had ruined the pharmaceutical business.
(Heard on Stephanie Miller = but the sad thing is that there is an awful lot
of direct truth in it. We've constructed an economy in which eliminating
cancer would be a horrible disaster. There are many other such examples.)
0 new messages