[mycroft]

Of course declarer doesn't have the right to waive the UI. Of course, declarer can do at least two things:
- not "notice" any play that might be reversed on a UI ruling; no draw attention, no TD call, no problem;
- call the TD, point out the situation, and request that the TD waives the penalties (Law 81C5) because he fast-played from dummy (It's not like this particular declarer is known for being slow).

The comment at trick 1 is extraneous and irrelevant (to the Laws), but does tend to imply that declarer is going to take the first option above - and everybody knows it, and everybody knows all the subtext, and everybody's happy with it, and the game continues. I'm sure that if declarer said that, and then asked for a UI ruling, the story would have been throughout the pro community before the next session, and he'd never be given another chance to pull that trick. My guess is that he'd rather lose the Spingold than have that happen...

In high-level bridge, a lot of these kinds of things Just Get Worked Out. In high-level bridge, where there is a lot of respect for everyone at the table, a lot of stuff is just handled without the TD, and as long as I never hear about it, what happens happens; my guess is that where there is less respect for certain high-level players, less of this happens - in fact, it's probably a good quiet way of showing the "respect" one side has for the other.

In lower-level bridge, a lot these kinds of things Just Get Worked Out, except that they don't - it's done with "I could call the TD on this, but I won't" or "So, what *were* you thinking about there?" or the like - or, better yet, there's a grumble like that at the table, and a reporting of it to the TD after a round or so ("so, what do you expect me to do?" "Nothing, just reporting it" - implied: "these guys need a Good Talking To, and I'm telling you to do it"*); and at that point, calling the TD and doing it one of the many right ways is much better (in * case, if a Good Talking To is needed, in the TD's estimation, then it will happen, for instance).

[awm]

Watching on vugraph, it certainly appeared that Fred went into quite a huddle at trick one on this hand. It wasn't the usual 10-15 seconds or whatever that's routine at trick one.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Aug 2 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

Even as far as the legal aspect, I think it would be quite reasonable to determine that either/both of his instant play from dummy and his comment to Fred means a pause by Fred doesn't transmit UI. (Not in the sense that I think his comment is an attempt to waive his rights, but that it would be hard to transmit UI from taking time after declarer invited you to do just that.)

Yes, as long as Fred always (or usually) pauses when invited to do so by declarer.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Aug 2 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 2 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

Even as far as the legal aspect, I think it would be quite reasonable to determine that either/both of his instant play from dummy and his comment to Fred means a pause by Fred doesn't transmit UI. (Not in the sense that I think his comment is an attempt to waive his rights, but that it would be hard to transmit UI from taking time after declarer invited you to do just that.)

Yes, as long as Fred always (or usually) pauses when invited to do so by declarer.

How would anyone know what he does in that unusual situation? I couldn't tell you how that comment changes the regular behavior of a single bridge player on earth, myself included.

[barmar]

Cascade, on Aug 1 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 2 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

Its not in the laws.

Sure it is. L73 refers to "undue hesitation". Since bridge players are generally taught to take time after dummy comes down to plan their play or defense, some extra time to think at this time is not generally considered "undue". There's a different standard for tempo at trick 1 than later in the hand.

The Laws don't say explicitly that the hesitation is expected, although it certainly acknowledges it when it authorizes RAs to make the pause mandatory. But without the mandate, it leaves interpretation of "undue" to other parties.

[Cascade]

barmar, on Aug 3 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 1 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 2 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

Its not in the laws.

Sure it is. L73 refers to "undue hesitation". Since bridge players are generally taught to take time after dummy comes down to plan their play or defense, some extra time to think at this time is not generally considered "undue". There's a different standard for tempo at trick 1 than later in the hand.

The Laws don't say explicitly that the hesitation is expected, although it certainly acknowledges it when it authorizes RAs to make the pause mandatory. But without the mandate, it leaves interpretation of "undue" to other parties.

I draw the opposite conclusion from the authorization for RAs to mandate a trick one pause. When it is not mandated the RAs are sending a message that such a pause is not obligatory.

Further when it is not mandated one pauses at one's own risk. The standard from Law 73 in the absence of a mandate is 'steady tempo and unvarying manner' and departures from that are cautioned to be particularly careful when variations could work to the benefit of their side. Thinking at trick one IMO is such a situation as in some situations you may mislead the opponent that you had a trick one problem when you had a whole hand problem.

The trick one pause is a cultural thing that I believe would be best made explicit if it was the intention of the lawmakers or RAs that a trick one pause was required.

[bucky]

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

This will be the layout to cash CA (and give partner ruff) IF north didn't have CJ. With CAJ there is no reason to play CA, not to mention it is pretty unlikely for partner to hold 6241 and only bid 3S.

[cherdanno]

bucky, on Aug 2 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

This will be the layout to cash CA (and give partner ruff) IF north didn't have CJ. With CAJ there is no reason to play CA, not to mention it is pretty unlikely for partner to hold 6241 and only bid 3S.

Declarer can pitch two clubs and ruff one. But of course I agree Fred would be unlikely to bid 3S with 6241

[barmar]

Cascade, on Aug 2 2010, 05:27 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 3 2010, 08:40 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 1 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

barmar, on Aug 2 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Although players are expected to hesitate at trick 1

Who says?

Its not in the laws.

Sure it is. L73 refers to "undue hesitation". Since bridge players are generally taught to take time after dummy comes down to plan their play or defense, some extra time to think at this time is not generally considered "undue". There's a different standard for tempo at trick 1 than later in the hand.

The Laws don't say explicitly that the hesitation is expected, although it certainly acknowledges it when it authorizes RAs to make the pause mandatory. But without the mandate, it leaves interpretation of "undue" to other parties.

I draw the opposite conclusion from the authorization for RAs to mandate a trick one pause. When it is not mandated the RAs are sending a message that such a pause is not obligatory.

Further when it is not mandated one pauses at one's own risk. The standard from Law 73 in the absence of a mandate is 'steady tempo and unvarying manner' and departures from that are cautioned to be particularly careful when variations could work to the benefit of their side. Thinking at trick one IMO is such a situation as in some situations you may mislead the opponent that you had a trick one problem when you had a whole hand problem.

The trick one pause is a cultural thing that I believe would be best made explicit if it was the intention of the lawmakers or RAs that a trick one pause was required.

"Steady tempo" should be interpreted in context. You should try to have a consistent trick 1 tempo and a consistent middle-of-hand tempo, but it's totally unrealistic to expect players to maintain the same tempo at trick 1 as other tricks. And both opponents and partner should understand that there's always more to think about at trick 1, so they shouldn't be misled.

Even if you take longer than usual to follow to trick 1, why should it be interpreted as a problem with that trick rather than the entire hand being more complicated?

[bucky]

cherdanno, on Aug 3 2010, 02:34 AM, said:

bucky, on Aug 2 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Aug 1 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Edit: ouch I forgot North has a singleton diamond. I guess I should make my example x AKxx AKx KQxxx.

This will be the layout to cash CA (and give partner ruff) IF north didn't have CJ. With CAJ there is no reason to play CA, not to mention it is pretty unlikely for partner to hold 6241 and only bid 3S.

Declarer can pitch two clubs and ruff one. But of course I agree Fred would be unlikely to bid 3S with 6241

After declarer pitches two clubs on diamonds, he still has 3 clubs (KQx) left. He has 1435 shape in your example hand. Where does the ruff come from?