[billw55]

 iviehoff, on 2012-September-11, 08:10, said:

On the other hand, if you were a backgammon player, you might have a different attitude. Backgammon explicitly allows players to touch and move pieces without commitment until the player signals the end of his turn by picking his dice up. (Yes, you do have to keep an eye on your opponent to ensure pieces are properly replaced.) It would be entirely feasible in chess to have rules that say your move isn't made until you stop your clock; or provided you don't release a piece on a different square, you can put it back and move something else. It is arguably merely a matter of tradition that chess players decided they didn't like opponents fiddling with the pieces and decided to have a touch-it-move-it rule instead.

Interesting point. I do play backgammon from time to time, although never in tournaments. Even so, it would never occur to me to move my checkers around willy nilly until I decide on an actual move. I think only by looking, and once my hand moves I am committed. Again, that's just me.

It turns out to apply very nicely to Go, which I have played more than any of these other games.

[bluejak]

 billw55, on 2012-September-11, 06:12, said:

And don't get me started about providing written defenses. "Sorry Mr. Nimzovitch, you cannot play your new line without providing a suggested defense to your opponent in advance, in writing." LMAO.

It annoys me incredibly too. Last year in the last day of the Nationals in Seattle in the final of the main Swiss Teams I was pleased that not a single opponent looked at our written defences, and most of them thought it funny we even had them [of course we had to have them].



Off-topic side note: for the first time for many years I am not going to North America this Fall: very sad.

[Bbradley62]

 iviehoff, on 2012-September-11, 08:10, said:

It is arguably merely a matter of tradition that chess players decided they didn't like opponents fiddling with the pieces and decided to have a touch-it-move-it rule instead.

I swear that when I was in high school (late 1970s) the chess rule was that a move wasn't complete until you let go of the piece; if you moved it and kept your finger on it and looked around you were still free to put it back and move something else.

[pran]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-September-11, 20:56, said:

I swear that when I was in high school (late 1970s) the chess rule was that a move wasn't complete until you let go of the piece; if you moved it and kept your finger on it and looked around you were still free to put it back and move something else.

In my youth I (basically) learned Chess. And one of the rules some 60 years ago was that once you touched a piece you must move that piece (if a legal move was at all possible), but until you had let go of the piece you were free to change the position to where you move it. You are not permitted to move a different piece instead.

(Exception: If you clearly state before touching the piece that you are simply reposition it within its current position.)

[Zelandakh]

 billw55, on 2012-September-11, 06:12, said:

But in my own mind, I doubt I will ever stop believing that saying "you get a heart" verbally, out loud, with full intent of ops hearing it, is functionally identical to placing the ♥J on the table. To me, the proper chess analogy would be claiming a difference between speaking the words "I resign" and laying down one's king.

Fair enough, but change the situation to one where declarer has ♠9, ♥AKQ in hand with only side cards on table and claims 3 tricks thinking that a higher trump is out. Now it is impossible for declarer to lose the 4th trick and an offence for the defenders to knowingly accept it. This is functionally equivalent to the checkmate rule - in effect the hand is already over.

 billw55, on 2012-September-11, 06:12, said:

It gets worse too. I don't think much of allowances for mechanical error. "Oops, I pushed my g-pawn but I meant to push my f-pawn. Mechanical error, I can retract and substitute."

The chess equivlent here is touching a piece accidentally, for example brushing against the king when reaching for the e pawn. There is no requirement to move the king in this case, although some unethiocal opponents will try to enforce it. The same with reaching for the 1NT card but laying down 2♣ because 2 cards got stuck together. It is accidental - you should feel free to retract it.

 billw55, on 2012-September-11, 06:12, said:

And don't get me started about providing written defenses. "Sorry Mr. Nimzovitch, you cannot play your new line without providing a suggested defense to your opponent in advance, in writing." LMAO.

Yeah, this one really does not have any chess equivalent. An example - I used to play an unsound Nf5 sac line of the Yugoslav Attack against the Dragon. Since it was not in their opening preparation I never had a single opponent actually take the knight. With a written defence they would clearly accept it! Perhaps it is best (most diplomatic anyway) to say that this difference reflects that chess is a full information game while bridge is not.

Worse than this is system regulation. "Only opening moves of e4 and d4 are generally allowed. If playing in a national level event you may also open c4 providing that this is pre-alerted to the opponent and written defences prepared that lead to at least a draw for black in all possible variations. No other opening moves may be made - if any other opening move is attempted this results in an immediate win for black."

[blackshoe]

It seems to me the comparisons to chess are getting pretty ridiculous.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 09:39, said:

It seems to me the comparisons to chess are getting pretty ridiculous.

Indeed. The rules of games are very dependent on traditions, so there's no reason to expect consistency between bridge, chess, backgammon, and go in situations that seem logically similar.

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2012-September-12, 01:52, said:

(Exception: If you clearly state before touching the piece that you are simply reposition it within its current position.)

"J'adoube."

I have known bridge players say that before adjusting dummy to make it look prettier.

[pran]

 bluejak, on 2012-September-13, 05:54, said:

"J'adoube."

I have known bridge players say that before adjusting dummy to make it look prettier.

And my GrandPa (N.M.Nielsen) told me that he once lost a championship because he adjusted dummy this way (without saying anything) and Ely Culbertson (his opponent at the table) claimed that "touched card is played!". (It was an insane play by any standards.)

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-September-13, 13:55, said:

And my GrandPa (N.M.Nielsen) told me that he once lost a championship because he adjusted dummy this way (without saying anything) and Ely Culbertson (his opponent at the table) claimed that "touched card is played!". (It was an insane play by any standards.)

I don't know what the laws said in Culbertson's day, but the current laws don't require this. 45C3 says "except for the purpose either of arranging dummy’s cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched." It doesn't require you to announce that you're doing so -- apparently we now trust players to be able to tell the difference.

[Fluffy]

 phil_20686, on 2012-September-11, 02:24, said:

It seems beyond careless to attempt to swindle the opposition by hoping they duck from kx, by first showing them your cards.

Nothing to do with what I mean, if in your mind heart king cannot be singleton, playing ace, queen or jack are all equivalent, thus its just careless to play a minor honor.

Imagine for example that declarer claims 2 tricks and draws ♥Q from his hand. Would you hav enay doubt that ♥K is a trick? well someone who is conceding a trick to ♥K is essentially doing that.


Last week at the club we had this position with spades as trumps.

---

Declarer led a club from dummy and I won ♣A, after that declarer pulled out ♣Q as a loser and claimed the rest, that would be fine if she was the leader for the next trick, but it was me, I couldn't see a way for her to lose a trick right now.

So I called director to her surprise to concede a further trick, director said that for a trick concesion form delcarer to be withdrawn ther has to be absolutelly no sequence of play that would allow for the trick to go to the other side. And ruffing in own hand on the ruff and discard for example is possible.

I disagree with director's POV, but I Am not so sure if the concesion here is valid. DIamonds being a bit block and such, would it be any idfferent if declarer had won ♦K before playing clubs?

[blackshoe]

Ruffing in hand if you lead a heart is careless, hence "normal". If you lead a diamond, it would be careless of West to win in hand, but again "normal". So per Law 71.2 the concession stands.

If declarer had taken the ♦K before leading a club, and you lead a diamond after taking your ♣A, then declarer gets two diamond tricks and would pitch the ♣Q on the second diamond trick (I think it's irrational to play otherwise), so in that case I would cancel the concession.

[gnasher]

On Fluffy's hand, I agree that the rules say that declarer loses a trick. In practice, though, many defenders would give him the trick without involving the director. That's what I'd do.

[blackshoe]

Sure. Who needs a rulebook? Or a director? Waste of damn time anyway. Pfui.

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe has never foregone a chance for a ruling in his life, I guess.

[jallerton]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-16, 09:37, said:

Ruffing in hand if you lead a heart is careless, hence "normal". If you lead a diamond, it would be careless of West to win in hand, but again "normal". So per Law 71.2 the concession stands.

Those lines are misere, rather than careless. In my opinion, when an opponent leads into a tenace, or concedes a ruff and discard, it's normal to take advantage of the 100% guaranteed extra trick presented to you.

Fluffy's opponent conceded because she was expecting him to lead another club, not because she was intending to something irrational.

[blackshoe]

misère |mɪˈzɛː| noun
(in solo whist) a bid by which a player undertakes to win no tricks.

Maybe I need a better dictionary.

As for never forgoing the chance for a ruling, you don't know me very well. Or at all, actually. I suppose folks don't have to call the TD in these situations. OTOH, it does seem to me tantamount to making one's own ruling at the table, and while people do that, I don't think it's right — and the law seems to agree with me on that point.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-16, 14:28, said:

Sure. Who needs a rulebook? Or a director? Waste of damn time anyway. Pfui.

I need a rulebook and a director when I want a ruling. When I don't want a ruling, I don't need either.

[barmar]

If declarer were Meckstroth or Fantoni, would you give a trick to the defense?

Have you ever made a defensive concession when you realized you were end-played? Aren't you assuming declarer would play competently? Although most of the time you can tell that declarer did it on knowingly -- in that case, the assumption is pretty obvious.

[Fluffy]

 gnasher, on 2012-September-16, 13:17, said:

On Fluffy's hand, I agree that the rules say that declarer loses a trick. In practice, though, many defenders would give him the trick without involving the director. That's what I'd do.

You could try, but conceding was very hard, declarer said that he had conceded and there is no way she would take that trick back, with a disagreement for a score there is no solution other than calling director.