Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: hesitating with a singleton
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:59:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wright State University

(CAUTION:  My comments may not be worth paging through all this
again, folks---MBC)

From article <1992Apr9.175445.9544@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu>, by ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying):
> barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth) writes:
>>I wrote:
>>|>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:17:48 GMT
>>|>
>>|>In article <1992Apr8.183647.29084@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>>|>>Suppose partner has made an opening lead in a suit in which you have
>>|>>a singleton, and your usual practice is to spend a few moments
>>|>>studying the dummy.  Declarer plays a card almost immediately after
>>|>>seeing the dummy.  Do you have to play the singleton at the 
>>|>>fastest pace at which you play a card, or can you take your usual
>>|>>time after the opening lead?
>>|>>
>>|>	First of all, the common misperception is that you can pause to
>>|>	look at the dummy at your first opportunity to play. 
>>
>>You certainly CAN pause to look at dummy at your first opportunity to play.
>>What you cannot do is hesitate with the intent of making declarer misguess.
>>My partner and I state "Take no inference from my hesitation on this trick"
>>so that we do not give the impression that our thinking has (one way or
>>another) anything to do with our play to the first trick.  The fact is, it
>>can be important to decide things about the whole hand before playing to the
>>first trick.  Why tell the opponents or partner where your difficulty is?
>>If you choose to spend a little time on the whole hand before playing to
>>trick one, that is your right.  You should warn declarer not to infer
> anything from this hesitation.
>>
> 	My apologies...I tried to explain this better later in my
> 	article (but apparently didn't succeed in getting my actual point
> 	across).  I didn't mean to say that you cannot pause to look at the
> 	dummy.  This is so obviously fallacious that I didn't think anyone
> 	would read that one comment in solitude.  The common misperception
> 	is that it is alright to pause before playing a card when you have
> 	no reason to hesitate.  If it you know what card you will play to
> 	the first trick, then you should play it.  I withdraw my original
> 	unconditional comment.  Karl is correct in pointing out that many
> 	times you wish to consider the auction and dummy before playing a
> 	card...that is fine.
> 
>>|>     Many
>>|>	people will state, "I have no difficulty with the trick, I would
>>|>	just like to study the hand."  If you have no difficulty with
>>|>	the trick, then you should play to the trick and then hold the
>>|>	card face up and do not turn it over. 
> 
>>True.  It's even better to pause BEFORE PLAYING ANYTHING and warn declarer
>>that s/he shouldn't take any inference from your delay in playing.  Sometimes
>>your play to the first trick is related to your analysis of the auction and
>>the sight of dummy.  It's nice to have a way of  saying "I'm thinking about
>>all this" without giving anyone (partner included) any unauthorized
>>information.
>>
> 	I tend to disagree here.  I think that when you have no difficulty
> 	with the trick, then you should play the card and hold the trick.
> 	Opponents should have no problem.  However, when you have no
> 	difficulty with the trick, I think it is unfair to the opponents
> 	(in this case declarer) to not reveal the card that you intend to
> 	play.  Remember, declarer needs time to review the hand as well and to
> 	force the two people (3rd seat and declarer) to do some critical
> 	thinking serially rather than in parallel can be unfair.  I find that
> 	it helps to make the game more quicker and more smoothly to just play
> 	the card that you have no difficulty with and allow both sides a
> 	chance to think about the hand knowing the information for the first
> 	trick.  If I am declarer and you are third seat and you hold the
> 	trick, then I may not be able to think out several valid lines of play
> 	without knowing what cards are played to the first trick.  Be merciful
> 	on the declarer and let him/her think about the trick and hand too.
> 
> 	As I said already, I agree with Karl that if you are truly thinking
> 	about what to play, by all means take your time...you have the right.
> 
>>I think most people mean "take no inference from this hesitation" when they
>>SAY "I have no difficulty with this trick..." at trick one.  But you are
>>right - the speaker can just play a card if their statement is true.
>>
> 	I'm a little sensitive about this stuff, because I always try to
> 	be ethical and fair, *AND* I have a few partners who are *VERY*
> 	slow.  When I play with them, I often feel "under pressure" to
> 	play quickly, but don't want to play too quickly and make a lot of
> 	mistakes.  I do try to allow declarer and myself (as defender) the
> 	chance to think through important decisions at the same time, if
> 	possible.
> 
> 	Ted Ying			ted@welch.jhu.edu

What do you gentlemen mean by "pause?"  The law says that a player
must not vary his tempo with intent to deceive, a form of coffeehousing,
but I cannot see that this means he must play to all tricks at equal
speed.  It's my custom to look over the dummy after the opening lead
regardless of my holding, and I've observed many other players do, too.
The notion that if one has no problem, he should play quickly, i.e.,
not pause, is "reverse coffeehousing."  If one has no problem or many
problems, he ought to try to play in tempo--whatever that tempo is.

Declarer has no right to establish the tempo of play, and explicit
attempts to, such as telling a defender to play, are also coffeehousing.
My own response to this (not very polite either, but defensible) is to
fold my hand and inspect my score sheet.

I think the one issue of opening lead play has been confused with
the unethical move of hitching without the queen--a common ploy of
some bad duplicate players.  They should be sentenced to play
rubber bridge against Bob Hamman!

Brian Clausing