I have been addressing situations where declarer plays 'unusually quickly' from Dummy at trick 1. The new WBF Law 73 in itself appears not to create any new problems. Law 73 A. 2. deals with tempo and UNDUE hesitation or haste. I believe 3rd in hand's play at trick 1 should usually follow about 30 seconds to 1 minute after the opening lead is faced, a little longer in sessions for new or inexperienced players. Tempo for these players should also be judged to some extent relative to their peers, particularly at trick 1. This allows 3rd in hand and declarer to ask questions, take a good look at Dummy, to think about the hand and to decide which card to play at trick 1.
I don't believe a statement by 3rd in hand of 'That's far too quick for me' or words to that effect following an unusually quick play from Dummy at trick 1 constitutes a breach of any part of Law 73. An unusually quick play from Dummy at trick 1 may be a breach of Law 73 C. 7.
If you believe that declarer has created an irregularity by calling for a card “too quickly”, then you are entitled to call for the TD: though that would be frivolous because the speed of their play does not damage 3rd in hand. You are not entitled to openly criticise declarer or their play of the hand.
Whether or not you believe declarer has played too quickly is immaterial to the rights that 3rd in hand has to think generally about the hand.
Rules regarding “tempo” are there to limit the occurrence of UI, which declarer cannot create during the play of the hand, and to promote timely play of the hand. Why do you think they are there?
What declarer does or does not do is not relevant to the discussion of 3rd hands rights at trick 1.
Your reference to Law 73C7 sounds like, “clutching at straws”: Short of a confession from a player, a TD can never know what the “purpose” of a variation in tempo. The law you’ve referenced requires a player to have a specific intent.
“I believe 3rd in hand's play at trick 1 should usually follow about 30 seconds to 1 minute after the opening lead is faced.”
There’s a lot to unpack in your statement and I haven’t got the inclination to dissect it all. However, what you “believe” is not relevant. What you can evidence by reference to the laws as being a foundation for your opinion is relevant. So where in the laws do you draw the inference that 3rd in hand is forced to pause for 30 seconds from the face of the lead (rather than from dummy being revealed?), and where do you draw the inference that 3rd in hand should play their card within a minute of such a lead being faced?
As a TD, you are expected to enforce the rules as they are, not enforce the rules as you would like them to be.
Whether a breach of Law 73 C. 7. has occurred does indeed depend on the intent of the player. The TD does not need to know this or to prove intent unless they intend to impose a sanction on the player. Nonetheless other players gain a measure of protection when a play is out of tempo, whether intentional or not, from EBU guidance and from TDs acting on an irregularity. This would apply to 3rd in hand to trick 1 where protection is gained from accusations of an irregularity or where there is an entirely unintentional but nonetheless perceived hesitation when, for example, the player hesitating has nothing to think about.
The time at which 3rd in hand plays to trick 1 after the opening lead is faced should not have to be restricted by the speed of play by declarer from Dummy at trick 1. I believe declarer is entitled to take as long as they like.
My comments are concerned with fairness. In this thread I am not addressing slow play.
"The time at which 3rd in hand plays to trick 1 after the opening lead is faced should not have to be restricted by the speed of play by declarer from Dummy at trick 1. "
No one has argued this point. You are straw-manning an argument.
"I believe declarer is entitled to take as long as they like."
As I said earlier...
"...what you “believe” is not relevant. What you can evidence by reference to the laws as being a foundation for your opinion is relevant. So where in the laws do you draw the inference that 3rd in hand [can take as long as they like]?
As a TD, you are expected to enforce the rules as they are, not enforce the rules as you would like them to be."
The topic is 'Pause by 3rd Hand at Trick 1'. Fairness to all players is the most important aspect of this topic.
What I believe is based on Laws and Guidance published by the EBU that I have read, comments made by EBU TDs in this forum and elsewhere, direct experience of irregularities and how they were handled and discussions with experienced players giving greater weighting to those who are qualified and/or are or have been members of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee or Panel of Tournament Directors. It's quicker and easier to to say 'I believe' and leave the rest 'as read'. I grant this courtesy to other contributors.
In my comment on December 14 I'm using the word 'should' in a natural rather than legalistic way. The 30 seconds to 1 minute is based on the time it usually takes for 3rd in hand to play their card at trick 1 after the opening lead is faced. I timed this on half a dozen hands yesterday when I was dummy. The range was 35 to 46 seconds. On another hand, a 4-4 fit 6D contract, defender on lead took about 15S, declarer probably 1 minute and 3rd in hand another 10 to 15 seconds. Given the circumstances this was not unusual. It seems both obvious and pertinent that the time available to 3rd in hand to play a card, without it appearing to be a break in tempo, depends on how quickly declarer calls for a card from Dummy.
In earlier exchanges you appear to have discounted the possibility that unusually quick play by declarer from Dummy may cause 3rd in hand to take more time after that play before they play a card. Effectively you have argued the point so there is no straw man.
Your arguments are always anecdotal. There’s nothing substantial in them that’s any more persuasive than someone else’s anecdotes. Even when you refer to “ Laws and Guidance published by the EBU”, you don’t say which parts and consequently you don’t provide any reasoned analysis of what those laws and guidance say to substantiate your view.
With regards to your anecdotal and unscientific timings: Players will take their lead (no pun intended) from the more experienced players. If those players take all the time they want (which is your belief), then they set the tone for the rest of them.
You haven’t argued for what is correct, you have simply described what is done.
Thankfully, the circumstances you describe are not what I see on club nights and coincidentally (perhaps), slow play isn’t an issue.
I've checked and your statement that my arguments are 'always anecdotal' is false. The timings were probably accurate to within 5% and almost certainly 10% (I've scientifically benchmarked my timing). The timings are more accurate than the findings given the small sample size (based on gut feel rather than chi-square test). In any case there's more value in anecdotal evidence of what is normal than merely restating Laws and Guidance to which we all have access and with which many EBU TDs are already familiar. In the specific session I referred to there were no unusual circumstances and no delays in the movement of which I became aware. It's a session where slow play is very rarely an issue.
I understand this forum deals mainly with actual events so as to help guide us in how to apply Laws where an irregularity may have occurred. This applies to both events that have taken place and to hypothetical but realistic events that might take place in future so that when they have done we can apply the appropriate Laws fairly. Sometimes this involves judgement as to what is normal or unusual where past anecdotal experience is at least relevant, if not predominant, whether that experience is that of the TD directly or of other players determined through polling opinions or possibly through an appeal panel.
You had no idea what those players were thinking about. Were they thinking about the hand generally or were they thinking about the hand explicitly. LOL.
The breakdown of time on all but one timed plays by 3rd in hand was roughly 15-20 seconds to table Dummy, a similar time for declarer to call for a card and Dummy to act on it and the rest, around 5 to 10 seconds, for 3rd in hand to play.
On the other hand, 3rd in hand played before dummy but the time taken was at the later play of a card from Dummy.
Dummy was almost certainly thinking, consciously or unconsciously, about how properly, neatly and efficiently to table the hand.
Declarer was presumably thinking about the lead, the hand and planning the play as well as designating a specific card.
3rd in hand was taking a look at the fully tabled Dummy, maybe thinking about the hand generally (and briefly) and either deciding with which card they should attempt to win the trick or remembering the partnership's carding methods and playing a card.
It's possible they were thinking about something entirely different so I can't be sure but it's not true to say I had no idea. I was surprised at how long it took the various Dummys to table their hands.
On another hand, untimed, 3rd in hand, possibly unusually, counted Dummy's cards and spotted that one was lying immediately behind another and stuck to it.
Your continued posts support my earlier statement;
“You haven’t argued for what is correct, you have simply described what is done.”
Is there any point to it? We all know “what is done”.
For example, players will gloat over a result, they don’t realise they’re gloating because the senior players haven’t held them to appropriate standards…
There’s lots of things that happen all the time at an average bridge club, but it doesn’t mean what they’re doing is correct.
Thanks for the conversation, but it’s going nowhere.
I wonder if the guidance in the White book 8.16.7 would have any inference as to how the WBF might be thinking about "a pause", as indicated in White book 8.73.2 [both paragraphs].
Over the decades, it seems to me as there’s been a smearing between the rights of Declarer and 3rd hand.
I was brought up to understand that Declarer could take as long as they wanted to assess the hand, but 3rd hand could only take as long as they needed.
Consequently, if Declarer took a substantial amount of time to think about the hand, then 3rd hand simply had to follow “in tempo”. If Declarer played promptly then 3rd in hand could take a moment to think about the hand generally because 13 cards on the table was sizeable AI that justified a moment to take in.
Somewhere along the road, 3rd in hand has gotten the idea that they have similar rights to declarer, and if declarer doesn’t take a lump of time thinking about the hand, they can have the leftovers for themselves.
That has never been the case, but it now appears to be common practice.
When declarer pauses, there’s no chance of UI, But when 3rd hand pauses at trick, UI is seemingly allowed to run rampant at some clubs.
I’d go with your view, over the view that 3rd hand has no restrictions upon them at trick 1, because it’s a sound interpretation of the laws.
In terms of tempo and its corollary hesitation, I have described what is normal. What is normal has to be based on what is actually done by the class/type of player involved. In a room with average age 70+ it's unreasonable to expect players to think and act as quickly as players decades younger. Over the decades the ages of bridge players, both new and experienced, have advanced by decades.
Taken together changes to WBF Laws 73 and 89 draw a clear distinction between regulation of prohibited forms of communication in 73 A and B and incidental unauthorised information in 73 C.
Law 16 B 1 will be relevant for decisions regarding incidental UI 'unmistakable hesitation' including in the context of 3rd in hand's play at trick 1. White Book 8.73.2.2 would be relevant when determining an alleged intention to mislead 'TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick 1'.
The purpose of these forums is to provide help, support and information to those who are in need of it. Please all remember that when you frame your contributions discussions. A more combative approach might find a home at sites like Bridgewinners, but here it is in danger of alienating some readers, who might be reluctant to pose questions for fear of the response they might get.
Thanks for all the comments on my original post. I think the post from CMot Dibbler on 21 August hits the nub of the problem with... "My thoughts are what do the laws say about "Pause" or "Pauses". It isn't mentioned in the definitions...! etc"
WB8.73.2.2 refers to a 'pause by third hand'. For me, this is clearly to protect third hand when declarer plays quickly and also to allow third hand some reasonable time before play. For me that would be 20, 30, 40 maybe 50 secs consideration time. Here esp bearing in mind this is RealBridge so the long delay s clearly visible, it is patently clear that third hand is trying to get a very specific and laboured message over to partner and when the KH is played, it clearly is NOT a singleton hence there is real UI. This is more a huge and deliberate break in tempo rather than a pause. There is nothing in the bidding and sight of dummy that of itself indicate the urgency for a spade switch. Had third hand played in reasonable tempo, then AS next would be completely acceptable and even normal maybe awaiting an encouragement signal or otherwise, but here, the UI from the slow KH has rather subsumed that.
I see the concern about UI although it is specific to the hands tabled by dummy and that South holds (with K to 3 Hearts) rather than the time taken to play per se.
For North, continuing with AS may be normal irrespective of the presence of any possible UI. There's clearly a risk that if declarer holds AC they might be discarding 2 or more Spades on dummy's long Clubs. If partner has AC or KS the contract is failing on AS continuation. If they have neither then playing AS should prevent the overtrick.
Perhaps at IMPs scoring AS continuation is more likely/normal (if there's a poll) than at matchpoints and perhaps it's normal in any case.
I've recently discussed this with another TD. I'm persuaded that there is UI when pause is followed by play of KH and if they were polled following Spade switch would suggest playing highest losing Heart asking for ruff (where KH deemed singleton without significant pause/UI) and Spade switch after for 5D+1 as result. This would be the case for them at matchpoints or IMPs.
Comments
I have been addressing situations where declarer plays 'unusually quickly' from Dummy at trick 1. The new WBF Law 73 in itself appears not to create any new problems. Law 73 A. 2. deals with tempo and UNDUE hesitation or haste. I believe 3rd in hand's play at trick 1 should usually follow about 30 seconds to 1 minute after the opening lead is faced, a little longer in sessions for new or inexperienced players. Tempo for these players should also be judged to some extent relative to their peers, particularly at trick 1. This allows 3rd in hand and declarer to ask questions, take a good look at Dummy, to think about the hand and to decide which card to play at trick 1.
I don't believe a statement by 3rd in hand of 'That's far too quick for me' or words to that effect following an unusually quick play from Dummy at trick 1 constitutes a breach of any part of Law 73. An unusually quick play from Dummy at trick 1 may be a breach of Law 73 C. 7.
If you believe that declarer has created an irregularity by calling for a card “too quickly”, then you are entitled to call for the TD: though that would be frivolous because the speed of their play does not damage 3rd in hand. You are not entitled to openly criticise declarer or their play of the hand.
Whether or not you believe declarer has played too quickly is immaterial to the rights that 3rd in hand has to think generally about the hand.
Rules regarding “tempo” are there to limit the occurrence of UI, which declarer cannot create during the play of the hand, and to promote timely play of the hand. Why do you think they are there?
What declarer does or does not do is not relevant to the discussion of 3rd hands rights at trick 1.
Your reference to Law 73C7 sounds like, “clutching at straws”: Short of a confession from a player, a TD can never know what the “purpose” of a variation in tempo. The law you’ve referenced requires a player to have a specific intent.
“I believe 3rd in hand's play at trick 1 should usually follow about 30 seconds to 1 minute after the opening lead is faced.”
There’s a lot to unpack in your statement and I haven’t got the inclination to dissect it all. However, what you “believe” is not relevant. What you can evidence by reference to the laws as being a foundation for your opinion is relevant. So where in the laws do you draw the inference that 3rd in hand is forced to pause for 30 seconds from the face of the lead (rather than from dummy being revealed?), and where do you draw the inference that 3rd in hand should play their card within a minute of such a lead being faced?
As a TD, you are expected to enforce the rules as they are, not enforce the rules as you would like them to be.
Whether a breach of Law 73 C. 7. has occurred does indeed depend on the intent of the player. The TD does not need to know this or to prove intent unless they intend to impose a sanction on the player. Nonetheless other players gain a measure of protection when a play is out of tempo, whether intentional or not, from EBU guidance and from TDs acting on an irregularity. This would apply to 3rd in hand to trick 1 where protection is gained from accusations of an irregularity or where there is an entirely unintentional but nonetheless perceived hesitation when, for example, the player hesitating has nothing to think about.
The time at which 3rd in hand plays to trick 1 after the opening lead is faced should not have to be restricted by the speed of play by declarer from Dummy at trick 1. I believe declarer is entitled to take as long as they like.
My comments are concerned with fairness. In this thread I am not addressing slow play.
So you’re off-topic.
Staying on-topic would be fair. Going off-topic, whilst leading others to believe you were speaking on-topic, is unfair.
"The time at which 3rd in hand plays to trick 1 after the opening lead is faced should not have to be restricted by the speed of play by declarer from Dummy at trick 1. "
No one has argued this point. You are straw-manning an argument.
"I believe declarer is entitled to take as long as they like."
As I said earlier...
"...what you “believe” is not relevant. What you can evidence by reference to the laws as being a foundation for your opinion is relevant. So where in the laws do you draw the inference that 3rd in hand [can take as long as they like]?
As a TD, you are expected to enforce the rules as they are, not enforce the rules as you would like them to be."
The topic is 'Pause by 3rd Hand at Trick 1'. Fairness to all players is the most important aspect of this topic.
What I believe is based on Laws and Guidance published by the EBU that I have read, comments made by EBU TDs in this forum and elsewhere, direct experience of irregularities and how they were handled and discussions with experienced players giving greater weighting to those who are qualified and/or are or have been members of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee or Panel of Tournament Directors. It's quicker and easier to to say 'I believe' and leave the rest 'as read'. I grant this courtesy to other contributors.
In my comment on December 14 I'm using the word 'should' in a natural rather than legalistic way. The 30 seconds to 1 minute is based on the time it usually takes for 3rd in hand to play their card at trick 1 after the opening lead is faced. I timed this on half a dozen hands yesterday when I was dummy. The range was 35 to 46 seconds. On another hand, a 4-4 fit 6D contract, defender on lead took about 15S, declarer probably 1 minute and 3rd in hand another 10 to 15 seconds. Given the circumstances this was not unusual. It seems both obvious and pertinent that the time available to 3rd in hand to play a card, without it appearing to be a break in tempo, depends on how quickly declarer calls for a card from Dummy.
In earlier exchanges you appear to have discounted the possibility that unusually quick play by declarer from Dummy may cause 3rd in hand to take more time after that play before they play a card. Effectively you have argued the point so there is no straw man.
Your arguments are always anecdotal. There’s nothing substantial in them that’s any more persuasive than someone else’s anecdotes. Even when you refer to “ Laws and Guidance published by the EBU”, you don’t say which parts and consequently you don’t provide any reasoned analysis of what those laws and guidance say to substantiate your view.
With regards to your anecdotal and unscientific timings: Players will take their lead (no pun intended) from the more experienced players. If those players take all the time they want (which is your belief), then they set the tone for the rest of them.
You haven’t argued for what is correct, you have simply described what is done.
Thankfully, the circumstances you describe are not what I see on club nights and coincidentally (perhaps), slow play isn’t an issue.
I've checked and your statement that my arguments are 'always anecdotal' is false. The timings were probably accurate to within 5% and almost certainly 10% (I've scientifically benchmarked my timing). The timings are more accurate than the findings given the small sample size (based on gut feel rather than chi-square test). In any case there's more value in anecdotal evidence of what is normal than merely restating Laws and Guidance to which we all have access and with which many EBU TDs are already familiar. In the specific session I referred to there were no unusual circumstances and no delays in the movement of which I became aware. It's a session where slow play is very rarely an issue.
I understand this forum deals mainly with actual events so as to help guide us in how to apply Laws where an irregularity may have occurred. This applies to both events that have taken place and to hypothetical but realistic events that might take place in future so that when they have done we can apply the appropriate Laws fairly. Sometimes this involves judgement as to what is normal or unusual where past anecdotal experience is at least relevant, if not predominant, whether that experience is that of the TD directly or of other players determined through polling opinions or possibly through an appeal panel.
You had no idea what those players were thinking about. Were they thinking about the hand generally or were they thinking about the hand explicitly. LOL.
The breakdown of time on all but one timed plays by 3rd in hand was roughly 15-20 seconds to table Dummy, a similar time for declarer to call for a card and Dummy to act on it and the rest, around 5 to 10 seconds, for 3rd in hand to play.
On the other hand, 3rd in hand played before dummy but the time taken was at the later play of a card from Dummy.
Dummy was almost certainly thinking, consciously or unconsciously, about how properly, neatly and efficiently to table the hand.
Declarer was presumably thinking about the lead, the hand and planning the play as well as designating a specific card.
3rd in hand was taking a look at the fully tabled Dummy, maybe thinking about the hand generally (and briefly) and either deciding with which card they should attempt to win the trick or remembering the partnership's carding methods and playing a card.
It's possible they were thinking about something entirely different so I can't be sure but it's not true to say I had no idea. I was surprised at how long it took the various Dummys to table their hands.
On another hand, untimed, 3rd in hand, possibly unusually, counted Dummy's cards and spotted that one was lying immediately behind another and stuck to it.
Your continued posts support my earlier statement;
“You haven’t argued for what is correct, you have simply described what is done.”
Is there any point to it? We all know “what is done”.
For example, players will gloat over a result, they don’t realise they’re gloating because the senior players haven’t held them to appropriate standards…
There’s lots of things that happen all the time at an average bridge club, but it doesn’t mean what they’re doing is correct.
Thanks for the conversation, but it’s going nowhere.
I wonder if the guidance in the White book 8.16.7 would have any inference as to how the WBF might be thinking about "a pause", as indicated in White book 8.73.2 [both paragraphs].
What you say is quite possibly true.
Over the decades, it seems to me as there’s been a smearing between the rights of Declarer and 3rd hand.
I was brought up to understand that Declarer could take as long as they wanted to assess the hand, but 3rd hand could only take as long as they needed.
Consequently, if Declarer took a substantial amount of time to think about the hand, then 3rd hand simply had to follow “in tempo”. If Declarer played promptly then 3rd in hand could take a moment to think about the hand generally because 13 cards on the table was sizeable AI that justified a moment to take in.
Somewhere along the road, 3rd in hand has gotten the idea that they have similar rights to declarer, and if declarer doesn’t take a lump of time thinking about the hand, they can have the leftovers for themselves.
That has never been the case, but it now appears to be common practice.
When declarer pauses, there’s no chance of UI, But when 3rd hand pauses at trick, UI is seemingly allowed to run rampant at some clubs.
I’d go with your view, over the view that 3rd hand has no restrictions upon them at trick 1, because it’s a sound interpretation of the laws.
In terms of tempo and its corollary hesitation, I have described what is normal. What is normal has to be based on what is actually done by the class/type of player involved. In a room with average age 70+ it's unreasonable to expect players to think and act as quickly as players decades younger. Over the decades the ages of bridge players, both new and experienced, have advanced by decades.
Taken together changes to WBF Laws 73 and 89 draw a clear distinction between regulation of prohibited forms of communication in 73 A and B and incidental unauthorised information in 73 C.
Law 16 B 1 will be relevant for decisions regarding incidental UI 'unmistakable hesitation' including in the context of 3rd in hand's play at trick 1. White Book 8.73.2.2 would be relevant when determining an alleged intention to mislead 'TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick 1'.
The purpose of these forums is to provide help, support and information to those who are in need of it. Please all remember that when you frame your contributions discussions. A more combative approach might find a home at sites like Bridgewinners, but here it is in danger of alienating some readers, who might be reluctant to pose questions for fear of the response they might get.
Thanks.
Thanks for all the comments on my original post. I think the post from CMot Dibbler on 21 August hits the nub of the problem with... "My thoughts are what do the laws say about "Pause" or "Pauses". It isn't mentioned in the definitions...! etc"
WB8.73.2.2 refers to a 'pause by third hand'. For me, this is clearly to protect third hand when declarer plays quickly and also to allow third hand some reasonable time before play. For me that would be 20, 30, 40 maybe 50 secs consideration time. Here esp bearing in mind this is RealBridge so the long delay s clearly visible, it is patently clear that third hand is trying to get a very specific and laboured message over to partner and when the KH is played, it clearly is NOT a singleton hence there is real UI. This is more a huge and deliberate break in tempo rather than a pause. There is nothing in the bidding and sight of dummy that of itself indicate the urgency for a spade switch. Had third hand played in reasonable tempo, then AS next would be completely acceptable and even normal maybe awaiting an encouragement signal or otherwise, but here, the UI from the slow KH has rather subsumed that.
I see the concern about UI although it is specific to the hands tabled by dummy and that South holds (with K to 3 Hearts) rather than the time taken to play per se.
For North, continuing with AS may be normal irrespective of the presence of any possible UI. There's clearly a risk that if declarer holds AC they might be discarding 2 or more Spades on dummy's long Clubs. If partner has AC or KS the contract is failing on AS continuation. If they have neither then playing AS should prevent the overtrick.
Perhaps at IMPs scoring AS continuation is more likely/normal (if there's a poll) than at matchpoints and perhaps it's normal in any case.
I've recently discussed this with another TD. I'm persuaded that there is UI when pause is followed by play of KH and if they were polled following Spade switch would suggest playing highest losing Heart asking for ruff (where KH deemed singleton without significant pause/UI) and Spade switch after for 5D+1 as result. This would be the case for them at matchpoints or IMPs.