[szgyula]

Dear All,

There was some argument concerning the first trick in a game. I would like to know what others think. Basic assumption is that opening lead is made properly (face down, partner asks for lead) and the dummy is faced. Now the quiz:

• Must the declarer wait XXX seconds before playing from the dummy? What is XXX?
  
• Can the defender look at the dummy and analyze the party, make a plan? How many seconds is he allowed to think? Is there a time limit?
  
• Does the previous answer change if the defender has an obvious card to play (singleton or only small cards)?
  
• Does the answer change if the defender has an obvious play BUT he knows that he will need time to make a plan and it will be his turn to lead?

The actual situation was: my ♥ lead against a NT contract. ♥ was my announced suit that partner did not support. My partner had a singleton ♥A. The declarer played a card immediately and my partner spent a noticeable time to plan a defense that does not involve a ♥ lead back as he did not have any.

My interpretations so far, please correct them:

73F does not play as there was a bridge reason to think about the defense. Namely he had to switch to a different suit and had to guess which one it is.

16B1(a) does play but one has to analyze what the information is in the tempo and what does it influence later.

I can not find easily a law that forces the declarer to wait before playing from dummy. It is my fault, probably. Please correct me.

[pran]

szgyula, on 2016-February-10, 02:21, said:

Dear All,

There was some argument concerning the first trick in a game. I would like to know what others think. Basic assumption is that opening lead is made properly (face down, partner asks for lead) and the dummy is faced. Now the quiz:

• Must the declarer wait XXX seconds before playing from the dummy? What is XXX?
  
• Can the defender look at the dummy and analyze the party, make a plan? How many seconds is he allowed to think? Is there a time limit?
  
• Does the previous answer change if the defender has an obvious card to play (singleton or only small cards)?
  
• Does the answer change if the defender has an obvious play BUT he knows that he will need time to make a plan and it will be his turn to lead?

[...]

Without looking up my sources my immediate response is:

It is correct procedure by Declarer to wait approximately 10 seconds before playing from Dummy to the first trick, he is, however, not subject to any reaction from playing faster.

RHO is entitled to a 10 seconds period from the moment Dummy is faced before playing to the first trick regardless of how quickly Declarer played to this trick.

The fact that Dummy and/or RHO may have obvious plays to the first trick does not affect their rights for a pause in this situation. The pause is intended for the purpose of planning the entire play.

[Zelandakh]

The EBU White Book is probably as good a guide as any for this:-

Quote

8.73.2 Pauses at trick one

8.73.2.1 Pause by declarer before playing from dummy

A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice.

8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand

If declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. In such circumstances, no disclaimer is necessary.

The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one if declarer has not paused before playing from dummy applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one if declarer did not himself pause before playing from dummy.

[jfnrl]

It is a matter of regulation. In France (google translation):
"85.7 - Initiates
After the opening card has been returned and the hand of the death spread, the registrant should take a break for 10 to 15 seconds before playing the dead. Not following this rule can lose the right to claim against a few seconds hesitation opponent placed after the death." (Règlement national des compétitions)

[nige1]

The EBU whitebook seems to be on the right track. The law-book allows for such pauses but leaves the details to local regulation. Much better if the writers of the law-book specified a default for when and how long, rather than again hiving off their responsibilities to the tower of Babel.

[sfi]

Against any reasonable opposition I am much more surprised when there is no pause at trick one than when there is one, and I don't think anything should be read into it. Both declarer and defenders have to process a lot of new information at this point, so playing immediately rarely happens. In fact, many times I have seen extensive (multiple minute) delays when it is pretty clear there is no real choice on trick one.

I have never seen a player try to claim damage from a trick one pause, nor would I expect to. I even advise newer players not to play to trick one before working out as much as possible about the hand. You haven't made a mistake yet, the opposition will not read anything into the hesitation, and valuable information has not yet disappeared.

[ahydra]

The only thing that concerns me about the WB (and the French) wording is the case where third hand needs to think longer than declarer, as might often be the case. IMHO third hand ought to be able to think for as long as is reasonable, regardless of how much time declarer took. The same applies to opening leader as well once declarer plays to the first trick (but before it is quitted).

Despite the WB saying "no disclaimer is necessary", at lower levels of play I often say "sorry, need to think about the whole hand" just to avoid any trouble. Luckily, as yet the only issue I've ever had in this area is from my own partner , who once claimed that he couldn't use the "UI" from my pause at trick one!

ahydra

[Coelacanth]

jfnrl, on 2016-February-10, 06:36, said:

It is a matter of regulation. In France (google translation):
"85.7 - Initiates
After the opening card has been returned and the hand of the death spread, the registrant should take a break for 10 to 15 seconds before playing the dead. Not following this rule can lose the right to claim against a few seconds hesitation opponent placed after the death." (Règlement national des compétitions)

Next time I put down an unhelpful dummy I will say "Sorry partner, I have the hand of the death".

Gotta love google translate.

[peterb001]

I think it does depend how long the 3rd player takes to work out the hand.

If I have a singleton, then I wouldn't spend a significant time before playing it - no more than the 10 - 15 seconds suggested above. However I would leave the card face up while I finished my deliberations on the hand, which then stops declarer or partner from playing to the next trick until I am ready. (With the singleton A this isn't generally a worry!)

[pran]

peterb001, on 2016-February-13, 07:55, said:

[...]
If I have a singleton, then I wouldn't spend a significant time before playing it - no more than the 10 - 15 seconds suggested above. However I would leave the card face up while I finished my deliberations on the hand, which then stops declarer or partner from playing to the next trick until I am ready. (With the singleton A this isn't generally a worry!)

I think this is an unacceptable and illegal procedure by 3rd player:

Literally you inform your partner that a card played (almost) immediately and then left face up while you plan the rest of the play is a singleton while when you take your time before playing to the first trick you inform your partner that you have at least one more card in that suit!

I trust that this is an unforeseen side-effect and not your intention?

[peterb001]

pran, on 2016-February-13, 08:30, said:

I think this is an unacceptable and illegal procedure by 3rd player:

Literally you inform your partner that a card played (almost) immediately and then left face up while you plan the rest of the play is a singleton while when you take your time before playing to the first trick you inform your partner that you have at least one more card in that suit!

I trust that this is an unforeseen side-effect and not your intention?

This wasn't my intention, and I did agree with the initial pause, rather than playing immediately. I would also follow from 2 or 3 small cards at the same speed, so I don't think that this is unacceptable or illegal. I was actually considering the opposite point - if the 3rd player hesitates for a minute before playing a card to the first trick, while working out the hand, is this a problem if the card then played is a singleton? My personal feeling is that it is, but I'd be happy to be hear other views.

[blackshoe]

Law 73D2 says, in part: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a remark or a gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton)…" This does not mean that you must always play your singletons quickly. Law 73D1 says "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." (The emphasis is mine.) If you have something to think about, you should think about it. When someone thinks for a while, you should not approach the situation from the viewpoint "she's hesitating!" or "It wouldn't take me that long, so it's an infraction" or anything like that. Cut people a little slack.

IMO, you should establish for yourself what you want your "normal" tempo to be in three situations: before you play to trick one, after your RHO makes a skip bid, and in all other situations. You might say 30 seconds in the first case, ten in the second (usually this is established by regulation), and say 3, 4 or 5 (take your pick) seconds otherwise. Then you should endeavor to stick to those tempos in the appropriate situations, and don't play a card until the time is up. Write these tempos on your system card; make sure your partner is aware of them. He should do the same, though he may choose slightly different numbers if he wishes. Maybe it never takes him more than twenty seconds to plan the defense at trick one. Doesn't matter. The point is, you have established your "normal" tempo for these situations, and playing in this tempo is not a break in tempo and does not convey UI, whatever your opponents may think.

This whole "when you have a singleton, play it right away and leave your card face up" is imo silly, not supported by law or regulation, and in practice doesn't work. Far more often than opponents politely waiting until you turn your card, you see them lead to the next trick in spite of the face up card. All too often that leads to confusion as to which trick your face up card belongs. It's a can of worms better left unopened. Play in tempo as above, and when you're done thinking, play your card.

There are three possibilities, as far as I can see, when a player appears to be taking a longer than normal time to play a card (or to make a call, for that matter): 1) he has something to think about regarding the hand, 2) he is distracted and thinking about something unrelated to the hand, or 3) he is deliberately trying to use his tempo to deceive an opponent or to convey information to his partner, or both. That last happens very very rarely. It is, after all, cheating, and in spite of all the scandals running around these days, deliberate cheating is, at least in the usual games, very unusual.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2016-February-10, 06:38, said:

The EBU whitebook seems to be on the right track. The law-book allows for such pauses but leaves the details to local regulation. Much better if the writers of the law-book specified a default for when and how long, rather than again hiving off their responsibilities to the tower of Babel.

Excellent though the White Book is, you are effectively asking for it to be added to the Law Book as it addresses many of the poorly written laws. When you ask for there to be no local regulations but have everything encapsulated in the Laws, they will increase by at least 155 pages and, when you ask the other NBOs, you can envision the Laws growing from 70 pages to 400. I don't believe this will be helpful.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2016-February-14, 03:06, said:

Excellent though the White Book is, you are effectively asking for it to be added to the Law Book as it addresses many of the poorly written laws. When you ask for there to be no local regulations but have everything encapsulated in the Laws, they will increase by at least 155 pages and, when you ask the other NBOs, you can envision the Laws growing from 70 pages to 400. I don't believe this will be helpful.

I agree that It would be silly to add all NBO local regulations to the law-book. It would save paper and simplify ruling, however, if the best of local and WBF regulations were carefully integrated into a restructured law book. For example, most local system-regulation seems to be concerned with protecting the local establishment from innovation and foreign competition: It would be daft to merge such spurious stuff.

If the existing law-book were first simplified and the deadwood chopped out, the improvement would be greater. Admittedly, the law-book might not become shorter: just clearer, simpler, and fairer.