[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2012-March-23, 10:26, said:

 Zelandakh, on 2012-March-21, 09:39, said:

What does annoy me is when someone holds their card out fully visible to me (and often also to partner) but not in such a way that it can be considered played while they um and ah about their decision.

Isn't a defender's card considered played when it could be seen by their partner?

I meant my partner not theirs. If you hold a card far enough out in front of you and wave it around a bit then both opponents can see it but their partner cannot. This could, of course, also be used as a psycological ploy - hold out a queen visible to each defender in turn and see if either play reacts at all. Most of the time it is simply done by poor players though.

One thing I did disagree with in this thread is where it was suggested that playing a card face down was ok with a singleton but generally not ok. Any change of procedure with a singleton over another holding should be avoided. You may think it protects you but it will not take very long for a smart partner to realise what the pattern is.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-25, 17:52, said:

Ok, you are the world expert on what other people think, and I haven't a clue.

No, I make no such claim. I do, however, claim to be the world expert on what I think. When you said "When you decide to think about the hand, I am sure neither you nor anyone else worries about the whole matter of everyone's thinking" [emphasis added], you were wrong, because I personally do "worry about the whole matter of everyone's thinking."

Quote

Reese, the EBU of many years ago, various writers in Bridge magazine and so forth

Ah, that sort of authority.

Regarding the EBU, are you telling us that this used to be the recommended practice in the EBU but at some point the EBU decided to stop recommending it?

Quote

Of course I have answered some of your questions,

You're quite right, I had exagerated - you did answer two of my questions. For reference, here are the other four, which were all asked in response to statements that you made:
- "I said that the given practice, although legal, is also unfair. Then I told you (again) why I and others consider it unfair. Are you going to explain why you disagree ...?"
- "Who has said they want to change your behaviour?"
- "Why does the fact that you and others do it mean that it is fair?"
- "Who do you think has attacked you personally, and when?"

Quote

you just don't like the answers.

That isn't true at all. I may disagree with your answers (not always, by the way), but I am delighted to receive them. What I dislike is when you make an assertion, someone asks a question that challenges that assertion, and you don't reply.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-26, 02:08

[WellSpyder]

 MickyB, on 2012-March-25, 18:56, said:

Ok, so the two methods being suggested are -

i) Play your card, then leave it face up while you think about the hand.

ii) Place your card face-down while you think, then play this card when you have finished thinking.

I would just like to make clear to gnasher, MickyB, Vampyr etc who regard option (i) as more considerate that I entirely agree, and would you please continue to do this when playing against me? I will aim to reciprocate.

I still have absolutely no idea why bluejak appears to consider this somehow less considerate that option (ii), but I will try to follow approach (ii) when I play against him. To be honest, I anticipate finding this hard to remember because it seems to me so obviously unhelpful, but I will do my best.....

[bluejak]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-26, 01:57, said:

Regarding the EBU, are you telling us that this used to be the recommended practice in the EBU but at some point the EBU decided to stop recommending it?

No, I am saying it has been recommended by the EBU. I am not aware of them no longer recommending it.

 gnasher, on 2012-March-26, 01:57, said:

You're quite right, I had exagerated - you did answer two of my questions. For reference, here are the other four, which were all asked in response to statements that you made:
- "I said that the given practice, although legal, is also unfair. Then I told you (again) why I and others consider it unfair. Are you going to explain why you disagree ...?"

I have explained again and again and again and again. I have reached the limit of exasperation.

 gnasher, on 2012-March-26, 01:57, said:

- "Who has said they want to change your behaviour?"

Some posters here have suggested that my behaviour is selfish and inconsiderate. Thanks. Are you saying this is not a suggestion to change it?

 gnasher, on 2012-March-26, 01:57, said:

- "Why does the fact that you and others do it mean that it is fair?"

I never produced that bit of illogic so why should I answer?

 gnasher, on 2012-March-26, 01:57, said:

- "Who do you think has attacked you personally, and when?"

They have made rude comments about a perfectly normal procedure, not allowing the tolerance which fortunately is normal in the game. It is unfortunate that a minority here are less tolerant than normal bridge players where people adopt different approaches.

 gnasher, on 2012-March-26, 01:57, said:

That isn't true at all. I may disagree with your answers (not always, by the way), but I am delighted to receive them. What I dislike is when you make an assertion, someone asks a question that challenges that assertion, and you don't reply.

What I don't like is that I answer and answer and answer and then, not only do you not like the answers, but you say I have not answered.

This is my eleventh post on the subject. Anyone reading your posts would think it was my first.