[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2012-March-12, 13:18, said:

You asked what was so important about detaching a card and I answered the question.

If I don't detach a card when I don't have a problem then I am coffeehousing. Is this so different than taking 30 seconds to play a singleton?

I still don't get it. If you don't have a problem, you play in tempo. Detaching a card is only part of that. Or are you equating detaching a card with placing it face down?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Introduction to the laws: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure…

The laws don't define a procedure for informing the opponents that you want some time to think about the hand or for taking time to think about the hand* (except as the RA may specify by regulation). Apparently, therefore, in the absence of a pertinent regulation, it is not correct to do so. IOW, if you can't think fast, you lose. I suppose discussion of that is best held in "changing laws".

*They do say that "unintentionally to vary tempo" is not normally an infraction, but that's a different thing, I think.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 14:03, said:

Or are you equating detaching a card with placing it face down?

Yes.

I think detaching a card and keeping it suspended in midair or reattaching it could create the kind problems we are trying to solve.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 14:18, said:

if you can't think fast, you lose. I suppose discussion of that is best held in "changing laws".

No, it was discussed earlier in the thread that one can simply delay quitting one's card to a trick in order to gain time to think. This is common procedure where I play.

As for others leading to the next trick anyway, I think that this would be playing a fifth card to a trick. I can't imagine anyone doing that, though, except by accident.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-12, 14:51, said:

No, it was discussed earlier in the thread that one can simply delay quitting one's card to a trick in order to gain time to think. This is common procedure where I play.

As for others leading to the next trick anyway, I think that this would be playing a fifth card to a trick. I can't imagine anyone doing that, though, except by accident.

Would it? You'd play Hell convincing a club director around here to rule that way.

It is not at all unusual for the other players to quit the trick when you haven't, and for one of them then to lead to the next trick.

In any case the custom of leaving a card face up to indicate a desire for time to think is not defined as correct procedure in the laws; therefore it is not correct procedure. So where the custom exists, it may work okay, but where it does not exist, you're stuck.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2012-March-12, 13:08, said:

I've very rarely encountered anyone doing that. They almost always wait for you to quit the trick.

Same here.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 17:42, said:

Would it? You'd play Hell convincing a club director around here to rule that way.

It is not at all unusual for the other players to quit the trick when you haven't, and for one of them then to lead to the next trick.

In any case the custom of leaving a card face up to indicate a desire for time to think is not defined as correct procedure in the laws; therefore it is not correct procedure. So where the custom exists, it may work okay, but where it does not exist, you're stuck.

It will work as long as your partner cooperates. Even if an opponent leads to the next trick, partner can (and should, IMO) refuse to play until the current trick is quitted.

[PeterAlan]

When dummy, I try to ensure that I only quit the trick when my declarer partner has done so. However, I'm very conscious of how easy it is to get caught up in the tempo of the defenders quitting their cards.

[Jeremy69A]

Doesn't "I'm not thinking about this trick but the whole hand" impart some information to partner? I find the habit of putting the card face down quite irritating. If you want to think then you can
a. do so before playing but other than at trick one there will be potential UI problems arising from this
b. play your card in the normal way and at the end of the trick keep it open for as long as you want to think(if you do this very often you may run into time problems but no more or less than playing it face down).

You occasionally run into people who are impatient and turn their card over and try to play to the next trick. Just be robust! Bridge players aren't normally shrinking violets.

The worst sort are those who not only play their card face down but when they've made their mind up turn it over and get impatient if it takes more than 0.02 seconds to move on to the next trick.

[Phil]

Jeremy69A, on 2012-March-13, 09:16, said:

Doesn't "I'm not thinking about this trick but the whole hand" impart some information to partner?

Doesn't

Quote

b. play your card in the normal way and at the end of the trick keep it open for as long as you want to think.

also impart information to partner?

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-March-13, 09:29, said:

Doesn't

Quote

b. play your card in the normal way and at the end of the trick keep it open for as long as you want to think.

also impart information to partner?

Yes, the same UI is conveyed whether you play your card face-up and then pause, play it face-down and then pause, or announce that you know what you're going to play and then pause before playing it. The difference is that the first allows everyone at the table to use the time effectively, whereas the other two do not.

[keeper2]

Quote

Yes, the same UI is conveyed whether you play your card face-up and then pause, play it face-down and then pause, or announce that you know what you're going to play and then pause before playing it. The difference is that the first allows everyone at the table to use the time effectively, whereas the other two do not.

Thanks, everybody. I think Andy sums it up very nicely.

In the game in question I don't think there is much risk of an opponent machine-gunning the next trick, particularly if you ask people to "leave their card out for a moment."

Quote

You have to break people of habits like these early, or it's too late

The player in question is a platinum life master so I guess it's probably too late.

I think as Gnasher suggested that it's well intentioned, but it is annoying.

[AlexJonson]

I prefer to play my card in one unhurried movement, having already thought if I need to.

I also invariably turn my card in a consistent unhurried way once everyone has played to a trick, unless I have a reason related to the current trick.

None of the devices described in this thread appeal to me at all, but I've learned to live with them.

[mycroft]

I've had people play to the *third* trick (granted, only once). Partner, at least, noticed that the card I "played" to trick 2 looked suspiciously familiar...

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-March-12, 12:10, said:

I don't think it's just a bad habit - in my experience the people who do this have the good intention of trying to avoid misleading the opponents. There's a similar and equally irritating group of people who announce that they're not thinking about the current trick, but still don't play a card until they've finished thinking about the causes of the Franco-Prussian War or whatever it is that's occupying their time.

Both groups seem not to understand that they can achieve the same effect by turning their card face-up and leaving it like that whilst they think; or they understand that they could do this, but don't understand why what they actually do is unfair and annoying.

No, I am not so stupid as to believe I can get the same effect by this, because it is not true. I am allowed to think when I want to, and if I turn the card face up the play will progress. So the effect is not the same.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 14:18, said:

The laws don't define a procedure for informing the opponents that you want some time to think about the hand or for taking time to think about the hand* (except as the RA may specify by regulation). Apparently, therefore, in the absence of a pertinent regulation, it is not correct to do so.

I would say the exact opposite: there is a Law about misleading opponents, so, in my view, in the absence of a pertinent regulation it is definitely correct to do so.

Jeremy69A, on 2012-March-13, 09:16, said:

Doesn't "I'm not thinking about this trick but the whole hand" impart some information to partner?

Of course, But the first importance is always not to mislead opponents. Giving UI to partner is not illegal, misleading opponents is. Plus, as others have pointed out, when you are trying to sort out a problem, whatever you do gives UI to partner.

[blackshoe]

There are several laws about misleading opponents, but I understand your point, I think. You are not permitted to mislead opponents by anything other than actual calls and plays, so where opponents might be misled by your need to think, you have to tell them what (in general, not specifically) you're thinking about. Okay, fair enough. Do I play my card in tempo and request time to think (or inform opps I need to think) about the whole hand? If they play on regardless do I have any recourse? Or do I withhold the card I intend to play? What if it's a singleton? Even aside from giving UI to partner, I see potential problems.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-15, 20:08, said:

Do I play my card in tempo and request time to think (or inform opps I need to think) about the whole hand? If they play on regardless do I have any recourse?

They can't play on if you leave your card faced.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-15, 21:24, said:

They can't play on if you leave your card faced.

Nonsense. They not only can, they do. AFAIK, no law prevents it. In fact, Law 66A implicitly acknowledges the possibility.

[mjj29]

IME they might lead to the next trick, then go 'oh, you've not turned your card yet' and nothing gets any further.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-16, 07:53, said:

Nonsense. They not only can, they do. AFAIK, no law prevents it. In fact, Law 66A implicitly acknowledges the possibility.

If you refuse to contribute to the next trick while the previous one is not quitted, you will now not be given MI that you are thinking about which card to play to this trick. Problem solved.