[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 18:18, said:

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.

Assuming that your partner isn't as obtuse as your opponents, play will progress by a maximum of one card, or two if declarer leads from one hand then plays out of turn from the other.

It's true that you're allowed to think when you want to - I didn't suggest otherwise - but if you do it in a way that is annoying and unfair it will still be annoying and unfair.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-16, 11:52

[mycroft]

So, some people just don't believe my #34?

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-March-16, 11:48, said:

It's true that you're allowed to think when you want to - I didn't suggest otherwise - but if you do it in a way that is annoying and unfair it will still be annoying and unfair.

It is not unfair, and it is not annoying unless people decide to make themselves be annoyed in a fairly silly fashion.

mycroft, on 2012-March-16, 11:55, said:

So, some people just don't believe my #34?

I believe you, of course, but so what? If my card is face down while I think I certainly do not expect people to continue to play, and have never known someone do so. If ever they do I shall call the TD then.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 10:38, said:

It is not unfair

The argument for considering it unfair is this: During the time that the player is thinking, he knows what card he is going to play to this trick. Therefore he has more information during that period, and is able to use the time more effectively than anyone else. If the other players at the table do their strategic thinking after playing to a trick, they do not have the same advantage.

Several people have already made this point, but you seem not to have offered any refutation. Can you explain why you believe that we are wrong?

[bluejak]

There is no such rule as the one you have invented.

On the other hand there is also no rule that says that you must think when others want either.

Since neither rule exists, neither is necessary or desirable, and both rules are merely based on supporting the views of intolerant others, I do not see the advantage in assuming such rules exist.

I actively dislike the serious intolerance that a minority bring to this game, which I believe is far worse than the alleged bad behaviour.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:42, said:

There is no such rule as the one you have invented.

On the other hand there is also no rule that says that you must think when others want either.

Since neither rule exists, neither is necessary or desirable, and both rules are merely based on supporting the views of intolerant others, I do not see the advantage in assuming such rules exist.

I didn't say that such a rule exists, I didn't say that it should exist, and I didn't say that we should assume that it exists.

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, or are you just going to erect a few more straw men?

Quote

I actively dislike the serious intolerance that a minority bring to this game, which I believe is far worse than the alleged bad behaviour.

I'm not sure who that's aimed at. Speaking for myself, my only response to this category of annoying and unfair behaviour is to discuss it in abstract terms on an internet forum. It seems to me that that this approach isn't particularly intolerant.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-19, 11:57

[bluejak]

I don't understand the term straw men, I have explained, and if I explain again it will now doubt be the same. I follow a recommended procedure which others have followed and object to certain people who want to change it for intolerant reasons.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:55, said:

I don't understand the term straw men

The Wikipedia explanation of straw men is quite good: "To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." When you said "There is no such rule as the one you have invented", that was a straw man, because I had never suggested that there was any rule.

Quote

, I have explained, and if I explain again it will now doubt be the same. I follow a recommended procedure which others have followed and object to certain people who want to change it for intolerant reasons.

Who has said they want to change your behaviour? And why does the fact that you and others do it mean that it is fair?

[WellSpyder]

gnasher, on 2012-March-19, 12:05, said:

And why does the fact that you and others do it mean that it is fair?

That's an easy one - because bluejak obviously wouldn't do it if it wasn't fair!

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-19, 12:28, said:

That's an easy one - because bluejak obviously wouldn't do it if it wasn't fair!

LOL. I think that Andy's point is that it is both considerate and time-saving if everyone, including you, can think about the hand while they know what has happened in the last trick.

[bluejak]

So what? I am sorry, I do believe in being considerate, but not to the benefit of the other side and the detriment of my own.

I do not like this straw man argument. I have argued in several different ways and rather than refute my arguments, some people seem to think it easier to attack me personally. Not everyone, certainly, Vampyr's post was reasonable, I just disagree strongly with this idea.

There seems to be a feeling that if a player wants to think when he feels like it the other people have a right to be completely intolerant, but he should be overly considerate of them. That is total rubbish. Put it another way, people whose opponents are thinking should learn to be tolerant.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 19:00, said:

some people seem to think it easier to attack me personally

I can't see any personal attacks on you in this thread. Who do you think has attacked you personally, and when?

Quote

There seems to be a feeling that if a player wants to think when he feels like it the other people have a right to be completely intolerant, but he should be overly considerate of them.

I can't see any posts where anyone expressed that feeling either.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-20, 03:42

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 19:00, said:

So what? I am sorry, I do believe in being considerate, but not to the benefit of the other side and the detriment of my own.

Suppose that you were to play your card face up, and then your side didn't play to the next trick until your card has been turned down. What detriment would your side suffer?

[bluejak]

I have not been allowed to think at the time I want to in the trick.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-March-20, 08:16, said:

I have not been allowed to think at the time I want to in the trick.

Sure you have. Or do you stop thinking when you put a card face-up?

The only people who have been prevented from thinking are your opponents if you put the card face-down, because you are with-holding from them the information that you have.

[bluejak]

So if I take time over my lead, because I am thinking about the whole hand, this is unfair on opponents because they should be allowed to think as well? That's ridiculous.

[sasioc]

With regard to people continuing play when you have not quit the previous trick, why don't you just say "sorry, the last trick has not been quit" when oppo lead? It also does not take much training to get a partner to wait for you..

Bluejak, I think the thing here is that no one is saying you *may not* think whenever you wish. Of course you may. They are merely saying that they consider it to be more courteous to think in the manner they suggest, because this avoids you thinking for a bit before playing a card and declarer then having to have their own think five minutes later, when they can see what you have played. This doesn't just waste oppos' time, it wastes everyone's time. This is a matter of etiquette, not a matter of law - not entirely dissimilar to if someone were to eat only with their hands and with their mouth open. They probably wouldn't be arrested but might not have company for dinner very often!

Another point, that no one has raised so far, is that I have had opponents place a card face down, occasionally saying that they are not thinking about the current trick, and then change it after a while. Although I'm not sure what the actual rules about this are, it doesn't seem ideal for someone to imply or state that they are not thinking about the current trick and then demonstrate that they actually were.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-March-19, 11:35, said:

The argument for considering it unfair is this: During the time that the player is thinking, he knows what card he is going to play to this trick. Therefore he has more information during that period, and is able to use the time more effectively than anyone else. If the other players at the table do their strategic thinking after playing to a trick, they do not have the same advantage.

I have two problems with this.

1. If you don't like him playing his card face down and then thinking, his alternative is to keep the card he plans to play in his hand while thinking. He still gets the same amount of time to think, and he still knows what card he's going to play while he's doing his thinking. Or is this not allowed because it would violate the Law against misleading opponents, since it seems like he's thinking about what to play to that trick? But if he plays this card quickly, he'll still have to think eventually -- if everyone plays to this trick and the next trick quickly, he'll have to think before making the next play. So he can't win unless he NEVER stops to think.

2. I don't know about you, but when my opponent goes into the tank I use that time to think. I wonder what type of problem he's having, and consider what I'll do for each play he might make. This allows me to play in tempo when he finally faces his card.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-March-21, 03:23, said:

I have two problems with this.

1. If you don't like him playing his card face down and then thinking, his alternative is to keep the card he plans to play in his hand while thinking. He still gets the same amount of time to think, and he still knows what card he's going to play while he's doing his thinking. Or is this not allowed because it would violate the Law against misleading opponents, since it seems like he's thinking about what to play to that trick?

I was comparing specifically these two:
(1) Decide what to play; play your card face-up; delay any further play whilst you consider the entire hand.
(2) Decide what to play; indicate that you have so decided; delay facing your card whilst you consider the entire hand.

You have just described a third approach:
(3) Decide what to play, but don't tell anyone that you have done so; delay facing your card whilst you consider the entire hand.

Some would argue that (3) misleads the opponents. I would argue that, like (2), it is an unfair use of the table's time, though I think it's reasonable and normal for someone to take a bit of time before playing to trick one.

Quote

But if he plays this card quickly, he'll still have to think eventually -- if everyone plays to this trick and the next trick quickly, he'll have to think before making the next play. So he can't win unless he NEVER stops to think.

As I and others have said several times, if neither you nor your partner plays to the next trick until the current trick has been quitted, it is impossible to be in the position that you describe.

Quote

2. I don't know about you, but when my opponent goes into the tank I use that time to think. I wonder what type of problem he's having, and consider what I'll do for each play he might make. This allows me to play in tempo when he finally faces his card.

In other words, he is able to think *knowing* what he's going to play; you are expected to think not knowing what he is going to play. Therefore he is able to use the time more effectively than you are.

[axman]

sasioc, on 2012-March-20, 08:46, said:

With regard to people continuing play when you have not quit the previous trick, why don't you just say "sorry, the last trick has not been quit" when oppo lead? It also does not take much training to get a partner to wait for you..

Bluejak, I think the thing here is that no one is saying you *may not* think whenever you wish. Of course you may. They are merely saying that they consider it to be more courteous to think in the manner they suggest, because this avoids you thinking for a bit before playing a card and declarer then having to have their own think five minutes later, when they can see what you have played. This doesn't just waste oppos' time, it wastes everyone's time. This is a matter of etiquette, not a matter of law - not entirely dissimilar to if someone were to eat only with their hands and with their mouth open. They probably wouldn't be arrested but might not have company for dinner very often!

Another point, that no one has raised so far, is that I have had opponents place a card face down, occasionally saying that they are not thinking about the current trick, and then change it after a while. Although I'm not sure what the actual rules about this are, it doesn't seem ideal for someone to imply or state that they are not thinking about the current trick and then demonstrate that they actually were.

I seem to have some recollection that there is a provision of law that it is a breach of propriety to detach a card [with the intention of] not playing it forthwith.