[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-November-23, 05:32, said:

Because you thought the BIT with three small spades (when the ♠J was led) in another thread was both legally and morally correct. That was, I presume, because you disagreed (as do I) with the White Book as to what constitutes a demonstrable bridge reason.

When someone includes "of course" in a statement, they are often on weak ground, and I do not agree that there is any law which makes it illegal to increase your tempo in the the hope of inducing a mistake. 74D7 prevents you varying your tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. None of the definitions I have found of "disconcerting" in the dictionary includes "inducing a mistake". I have never encountered a ruling for unduly fast play and 73D1 also makes it clear that it is not always required to maintain an unvarying manner. Fast play cannot (in theory) work to the benefit of your side, as there is no requirement on the opponent to play at the same speed, as mgoetze points out, so the requirement to be particularly careful does not apply.

Unless I am misinterpreting your post because I could not quite piece together the double negative.

Sorry, I've only just noticed this.

In the other thread to which I think you're referring, I believe I said it was legally and morally correct to pause for the purpose of thinking. I've now said that it's not legally or morally correct to vary your tempo in order to induce a mistake. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't see any inconsistency between those two statements.

[blackshoe]

I've never seen a ruling on unduly fast play either. Doesn't mean there was never a situation in which one should have been made. Doesn't, in fact, mean that there's never been unduly fast play that should have resulted in a score adjustment or a penalty.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-November-29, 03:54, said:

In the other thread to which I think you're referring, I believe I said it was legally and morally correct to pause for the purpose of thinking. I've now said that it's not legally or morally correct to vary your tempo in order to induce a mistake. Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't see any inconsistency between those two statements.

Would you accept that it is legal to vary your tempo because there is nothing to think about? The only evidence we have here is that SB played the ace and king of spades and queen of clubs in order to induce a revoke. He played them in quick succession because he had nothing to think about as inducing the revoke was the only plausible line for his contract. He played specifically those cards because his LHO was visually impaired, in the hope of inducing a revoke. His tempo did not vary from other hands on which he had nothing to think about, nor did it vary on this deal, on which SB played every card quickly.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2015-November-25, 05:06, said:

For this forum, we know the purpose of the game from Law 72A: "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws."

Precisely. Several laws (with which you should comply) state that you should try to maintain an even tempo.

lamford, on 2015-November-29, 19:22, said:

Would you accept that it is legal to vary your tempo because there is nothing to think about? The only evidence we have here is that SB played the ace and king of spades and queen of clubs in order to induce a revoke. He played them in quick succession because he had nothing to think about as inducing the revoke was the only plausible line for his contract. He played specifically those cards because his LHO was visually impaired, in the hope of inducing a revoke. His tempo did not vary from other hands on which he had nothing to think about, nor did it vary on this deal, on which SB played every card quickly.

The OP said SB played the 3 cards "in quick succession". I read that to mean "faster than his normal tempo". The law says you should try to maintain an even tempo. Presumably, even when you have nothing to think about. (Although, in some circumstances, you should claim, instead of playing on). Playing at an even tempo is not an infraction. It's an infraction to vary your tempo to disconcert an opponent,

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-November-29, 19:22, said:

Would you accept that it is legal to vary your tempo because there is nothing to think about?

Yes, as long as you are don't do it in a situation where you might gain as a result of the variation.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-November-30, 02:02, said:

[/size]
Yes, as long as you are don't do it in a situation where you might gain as a result of the variation.

And the other question is whether "varying one's tempo" means varying it with regard to one's tempo on other hands, or with regard to one's tempo on this hand. On your basis, you would regard it as illegal to play quickly whenever it is a difficult hand for your opponents but not for you, and illegal to play slowly when it might cause the opponents to fall asleep.

And, surely, inducing a revoke is a "demonstrable bridge reason", so whether or not you gain from the variation in tempo is irrelevant.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2015-November-29, 20:11, said:

The OP said SB played the 3 cards "in quick succession". I read that to mean "faster than his normal tempo".

If I had meant "faster than his normal tempo", I would have written, "faster than his normal tempo". He played at his normal tempo for hands where he considered that he had only one line of play, which is indeed to play his cards "in quick succession".

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-November-30, 06:34, said:

And the other question is whether "varying one's tempo" means varying it with regard to one's tempo on other hands, or with regard to one's tempo on this hand. On your basis, you would regard it as illegal to play quickly whenever it is a difficult hand for your opponents but not for you, and illegal to play slowly when it might cause the opponents to fall asleep.

Please stop putting words into my mouth.

I would regard it as illegal to play more quickly than usual if it's a difficult hand for my opponents and my playing quickly might induce them to make a mistake.

I wouldn't regard it as illegal to play slowly because I'm thinking. "Be particularly careful in situations where ..." doesn't mean you can never vary your tempo in such situations. If you have a good reason to vary your tempo at that point, it's legal.

Quote

And, surely, inducing a revoke is a "demonstrable bridge reason", so whether or not you gain from the variation in tempo is irrelevant.

The bridge laws don't define "bridge reason", so we (or our RAs) are left to make our own interpretation of this phrase. My interpretation is that inducing a revoke is not a bridge reason.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-November-30, 07:42

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-November-30, 07:39, said:

My interpretation is that inducing a revoke is not a bridge reason.

Hogwash, as blackshoe would say. What is it then? A chess reason?

And I don't agree with you that playing quickly if it might induce the opponents to make a mistake is illegal. Nor does Rodwell. It always could, although it could be argued that it never could, because they have no obligation to play at the same speed.

And if playing quickly were an infraction, we should have had at least one ruling against it by now, compared with the hundreds of rulings for breaks in tempo, which are always slow bidding or play, never fast. Even the EBU appeals booklets use "H for hesitation" rather than "V for variation in tempo".

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2015-November-30, 11:02, said:

And if playing quickly were an infraction, we should have had at least one ruling against it by now, compared with the hundreds of rulings for breaks in tempo, which are always slow bidding or play, never fast.

Really? I have certainly asked oppo on more than one occasion to agree that a bid was out of tempo because it was too fast rather than too slow, and only yesterday called a TD to register this when oppo weren't initially sure they agreed. Usually this happens when they bid (or, indeed, pass) immediately after a stop bid, thereby signalling to partner that it was an easy choice to make. I have also considered asking for a ruling when a defender signalled encouragement on partner's opening lead of an A immediately after dummy went down, rather than waiting a customary period, and indeed rather than waiting for the inevitable small card to be called from dummy.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2015-November-30, 11:02, said:

Hogwash, as blackshoe would say. What is it then? A chess reason?

As I said, the term isn't defined, so we're unlikely to get any further than my saying that I think it's not a bridge reason, and your saying, in your (I hope) inimitable style, that you think it is.

Quote

And I don't agree with you that playing quickly if it might induce the opponents to make a mistake is illegal. Nor does Rodwell. It always could, although it could be argued that it never could, because they have no obligation to play at the same speed.

On this occasion I have had the good fortune to escape your disagreement. I didn't say that it's illegal to play quickly if it might induce the opponents to make a mistake. I referred to playing more quickly than usual.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2015-November-30, 06:37, said:

If I had meant "faster than his normal tempo", I would have written, "faster than his normal tempo". He played at his normal tempo for hands where he considered that he had only one line of play, which is indeed to play his cards "in quick succession".

If SB normally plays quickly; but slows up when he has a decision to make, that is more understandable . Lamford might have made it clear that "quick succession" is "normal tempo" for SB.

[axman]

gnasher, on 2015-November-30, 12:25, said:

[/size]
On this occasion I have had the good fortune to escape your disagreement. I didn't say that it's illegal to play quickly if it might induce the opponents to make a mistake. I referred to playing more quickly than usual.

I think that 'illegal' is rather strong invective with regard to 'than usual'. Perhaps 'bending propriety' more resembles the act.

My thinking is that 'than usual' can have its own relative perspective. For instance, I am reminded of an auction where RHO dithered nearly 3 minutes reaching for he bidding box and then un-reaching. Finally, skipping the bidding. my normal non skip tempo being 1/4sec came to the fore rather than my normally fastidious 12sec skip tempo. My lapse would seem forgivable since (a) it was singular and (b) I had 3 minutes to contemplate the next three hands...

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-November-30, 11:02, said:

And if playing quickly were an infraction, we should have had at least one ruling against it by now…

Yes, we should. However, the fact that we haven't does not mean that playing quickly is not an infraction. In my experience, it means that no one ever calls the director for fast tempo. Or at least hardly ever. And I suspect that if someone does call the director, that worthy will not know what to do with it.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2015-November-30, 11:36, said:

Usually this happens when they bid (or, indeed, pass) immediately after a stop bid, thereby signalling to partner that it was an easy choice to make.

That is a breach of the RA's stop card regulations, presumably, rather than just bidding too quickly. The difference there, as with unusually fast defensive play, is that it is illegal communication with partner. That is different from fast declarer play, where:

a) there is no partner to communicate with meaningfully
b) the opponents do not have to play at the same pace, and it is entirely their own lookout if they do
c) if they are disconcerted they should take up a more sedate sport like bowls

I remain unconvinced that fast declarer play can ever be an infraction. Has any TD ever been called for unduly fast declarer play?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-November-30, 19:28, said:

c) if they are disconcerted they should take up a more sedate sport like bowls

That, it seems to me, is a poor attitude for a bridge player, and even more so for a director, to take.