Deception

[sceptic]

You only have a singleton and you are defending a contratct RHO plays a card (I think it does not matter where in the play you are)

 

Why is hesitation in this position unethical and not just deception or gamesmanship

 

or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[Free]

You can only use the bids and the symbols on the cards to deceive your opponents. Thinking with a singleton is similar to giving signals to partner with the way you're playing a card, or using body language in an auction to give other meanings to your bids.

[badderzboy]

2. Intentional Variations

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark

or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in

hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call

or play is made.

E. Deception

A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or

play (so long as the deception is not protected by concealed partnership

understanding or experience). It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving

information to the opponents by making all calls and plays in unvarying tempo

and manner.

F. Violation of Proprieties

When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to

an innocent opponent,

1. Player Acts on Unauthorised Information

if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical

alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested

over another by his partner’s remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he

shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16).

2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception

if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false

inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent

who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could

have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his

benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C),

 

Hi Wayne,

 

Straight from the law book.

 

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply. (In fact as a matter of course it is good form to consider dummy for two reasons - allows ptr to consider as well and also gives no clue whether u need to coniser dummy or not).

 

Steve

[sceptic]

You can only use the bids and the symbols on the cards to deceive your opponents. Thinking with a singleton is similar to giving signals to partner with the way you're playing a card, or using body language in an auction to give other meanings to your bids.

 

 

how does this equate to online bridge where hesitations are (imho) meaningless

[Free]

As long as the software can't detect short disconnects (which is virtually impossible to check 5 times per second if someone is still there) you can't prove there was a hesitation or not. However, it's still unethical to do so, no matter if people can't prove it...

[inquiry]

You should try to play with an even tempo. This means if you take a second or two to play a card from two or three or more cards, it is perfectly ok AND APPROPRIATE to take a second or two to play from a singleton. At trick one in third seat, if I hold a singleton and dummy plays lightening fast, I may very well take a while before playing my card as I think about the entire hand and try to construct the unseen hands (partner and declarer). I have been known to tell declarer in that case that I am thinking about the hand.

 

Having said that, we all know people who play fairly fast switch to agonizingly slow with a singleton trump or with three small when JACK is lead as if they were thinking to covering the jack or not. This coffeehousing is not ethical.

 

(edited.. yes... coffeehouse is not ethical --- or it is unethical... don't write post before the first cup of coffee ---even if talking about "coffee"-housing).

[brianshark]

I think Ben means 'this coffehousing is unethical', or 'is not ethical'.

 

But yeah, tempo bluffs are for Poker, not Bridge. It's just the way the game is, I guess.

[kenberg]

As far as the difference between f2f and online: We all have to decide what is important to us. Sure partner's hesitation may be due to a phone call or conversation with his/her spouse. Or it may be due to exactly what you think it is due to. Make your own choice, don't be surprised if others make other choices. Some online directors will sometimes address this. Mostly it is your opportunity to show respect for the game.

[EricK]

Declarer leads towards KJx in dummy and you have the Ace. Is it ethical to play low quickly in an effort to deceive declarer? What about thinking for a while when you have the Queen but no Ace? What about thinking for a while when you have no honour at all?

[inquiry]

Declarer leads towards KJx in dummy and you have the Ace. Is it ethical to play low quickly in an effort to deceive declarer? What about thinking for a while when you have the Queen but no Ace? What about thinking for a while when you have no honour at all?

The answer is it depends. If you play as described for the purpose of fooling declarer by your tempo, the answer is that this is UNETHICAL and illegal. IF on the other hand wiht three small, you stop to think "should I give count here or will that help declarer" then there is no problem. Again, I favor an even tempo even when you know what to play so that when you do have to hesitiate, there is no ethical implication.

 

I know, I know, a lot of people like to play bridge like speed chess.. but then they should play problem holdings just as fast.

[Walddk]

IF on the other hand wiht three small, you stop to think "should I give count here or will that help declarer" then there is no problem.

I strongly disagree. Either you give honest count or you don't. You have absolutely nothing to think about as far as bridge is concerned with three small under the exposed KJx.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

IF on the other hand wiht three small, you stop to think "should I give count here or will that help declarer" then there is no problem.

I strongly disagree. Either you give honest count or you don't. You have absolutely nothing to think about as far as bridge is concerned with three small under the exposed KJx.

 

Roland

Agreed...nor with Qxx... and on the few times that I have been burned by such a false hitch, hearing 'I was wondering what count to give' makes me conclude, rightly or wrongly, that I am dealing with a liar as well as a borderline cheat.

 

If you find yourself inadvertently hestitating when you have no problem (and it can happen if you have lost focus), just say nothing until after the hand and then apologize to declarer.. don't try to justify it... just admit you made an error.

 

If you did it on purpose... find another game to play.. go play poker.

[barmar]

But Roland, sometimes you have to decide whether it's a situation where you want or need to give honest count.

 

Ideally you should plan ahead for most of these decisions, so that you don't have to hesitate at the crucial time. But sometimes the play goes quickly enough that you don't get a chance to do all your thinking. You're supposed to <em>try</em> to maintain even tempo, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about hesitating when you actually have something to think about. It's then incumbent on your <em>partner</em> to avoid taking inferences from the hesitation.

[Walddk]

But Roland, sometimes you have to decide whether it's a situation where you want or need to give honest count.

 

Ideally you should plan ahead for most of these decisions, so that you don't have to hesitate at the crucial time. But sometimes the play goes quickly enough that you don't get a chance to do all your thinking. You're supposed to <em>try</em> to maintain even tempo, but there's nothing illegal or unethical about hesitating when you actually have something to think about. It's then incumbent on your <em>partner</em> to avoid taking inferences from the hesitation.

Any decent player will not be taken by surprise when declarer leads low towards KJx. Either you have made up your mind in advance or you do it in tempo. It's as simple as that.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with all Mike said.

 

Roland

[barmar]

"Any decent player" is the operative phrase there. What about less expert players, who aren't good at planning all their plays (even relatively obvious ones like this) ahead of time? They're not being unethical if they stop to think, they're just being human.

 

I've kibbitzed many expert games and occasionally seen times when a champion-level player has to think in situations like this. Most of the time little UI is passed as a result, since declarer's play makes it pretty obvious that he's trying to find the Ace or Queen, and partner knows which of them he has -- whatever declarer is trying to find, partner already knows where it is, and the hesitation only helps declarer.

 

Which then explains why coffeehousing is unethical. Partner already knows where the critical cards are, so your deception won't fool him, only declarer. And this is considered unfair.

[Guest Jlall]

No you can't hesitate with the intent to deceive.

 

A lot of the bridge laws have chosen to incorporate intent. Some things are illegal with malicious intent, but legal otherwise. This gives the cheaters an advantage because they can get away with a lot of stuff. But their peers always know, and their reputation is always smeered. I believe that more than anything keeps experts who may otherwise have cheated from cheating.

 

FWIW if I zone out and don't play in tempo, I will always say "sorry np." This is not required but I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

For those who say that hesitations online are meaningless, I think you're extremely wrong. You can very often read someones tempo online. If they've played the same tempo all the time and then alter it in a situation where they might need to think then it's safe to assume they were thinking. If they've consistently had random tempo variation (in situations where you cannot be deceived, just literally random) maybe theyre playing poker or something in the background and you know not to read into their tempo. If they consistently hesitate only in situations where you can be deceived then they're dishonest, but you can still use it to your advantage, just take the opposite inference. I love playing against people who fake hitch because they give me just as much info as those who hesitate for real.

[barmar]

If you play with a regular group of people, you probably have a good idea of who has good connections and who doesn't, who has family interrupting them, etc., so you can often tell when hesitations are real or not. But if you're playing in a tourney, you don't know much about your opponents, and they may be a pickup partnership who don't know each other, either. In this case, it's hard to know what's causing a hesitation.

[mikeh]

FWIW if I zone out and don't play in tempo, I will always say "sorry np." This is not required but I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

Many years ago, probably before Justin was born, I held something like Qxx in the ♥ suit and dummy held something like K109xx. Early on, it was obvious that eventually declarer, a solid player, would probably be leading towards dummy. I was not as experienced then as I am now but I could count declarer for at most 2 cards in the suit, and I knew that I would be playing low no matter what card declarer led.

 

 

However, declarer tanked and I drifted off. Then he played the ♥ J from his hand, and I broke tempo. I was not considering covering, that decision had been made several tricks earlier.. I had just lost focus. So I reflexively said what I always said in such circumstance: 'sorry, no problem'

 

Declarer looked at me and then called for the K, losing to the A... he had Jx and got a poor result. He never said a word, but I knew that he had marked me mentally as a coffee-houser or worse, and I was incredibly embarrassed.

 

Many years passed, and I occasionally played with and on teams with and often against this player... and it was about a year ago that he said to me: "Do you remember a hand back about 20 years ago I played against you...', and I knew immediately which hand he was talking about... I have never forgotten it and neither had he.... by now, fortunately, he knew me well enough to know that it truly had been an accident, but I learned a lesson way back then: don't say a word.. if you've lost focus enough to hestitate accidentally, maybe you've lost focus enough to allow a reflex statement to come out of your mouth :P

[barmar]

In f2f bridge I think most comments like "sorry, no problem" are not necessary. Usually you can tell whether someone is actually thinking about their play, has been distracted, didn't notice it was their turn, etc.

 

Online is much more of a problem, since we don't have any of the visual cues that help us read each other's minds.

[cherdano]

For those who say that hesitations online are meaningless, I think you're extremely wrong. You can very often read someones tempo online. If they've played the same tempo all the time and then alter it in a situation where they might need to think then it's safe to assume they were thinking.

I definitely agree. While I am certainly not as good as Justin reading tempo problems, I noticed that I don't even need to do it consciously - I just automatically realize that the rhythm was broken even when I didn't pay attention to the tempo earlier.

[Guest Jlall]

FWIW if I zone out and don't play in tempo, I will always say "sorry np." This is not required but I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

Many years ago, probably before Justin was born, I held something like Qxx in the ♥ suit and dummy held something like K109xx. Early on, it was obvious that eventually declarer, a solid player, would probably be leading towards dummy. I was not as experienced then as I am now but I could count declarer for at most 2 cards in the suit, and I knew that I would be playing low no matter what card declarer led.

 

 

However, declarer tanked and I drifted off. Then he played the ♥ J from his hand, and I broke tempo. I was not considering covering, that decision had been made several tricks earlier.. I had just lost focus. So I reflexively said what I always said in such circumstance: 'sorry, no problem'

 

Declarer looked at me and then called for the K, losing to the A... he had Jx and got a poor result. He never said a word, but I knew that he had marked me mentally as a coffee-houser or worse, and I was incredibly embarrassed.

 

Many years passed, and I occasionally played with and on teams with and often against this player... and it was about a year ago that he said to me: "Do you remember a hand back about 20 years ago I played against you...', and I knew immediately which hand he was talking about... I have never forgotten it and neither had he.... by now, fortunately, he knew me well enough to know that it truly had been an accident, but I learned a lesson way back then: don't say a word.. if you've lost focus enough to hestitate accidentally, maybe you've lost focus enough to allow a reflex statement to come out of your mouth :P

I also heard of a hand like this between meckstroth and zia where one said np when declarer led up to the KJ and they had the ace...and the other called director then appealed after misguessing.

 

There are plusses and minuses to each way of handling it but I still prefer saying "sorry np" when I have hesitated inadvertantly. If I did not they might think the same thing that your opponent probably thought when you did say something.

[cherdano]

Many years ago, probably before Justin was born, I held something like Qxx in the ♥ suit and dummy held something like K109xx. Early on, it was obvious that eventually declarer, a solid player, would probably be leading towards dummy. I was not as experienced then as I am now but I could count declarer for at most 2 cards in the suit, and I knew that I would be playing low no matter what card declarer led.

 

However, declarer tanked and I drifted off. Then he played the ♥ J from his hand, and I broke tempo. I was not considering covering, that decision had been made several tricks earlier.. I had just lost focus. So I reflexively said what I always said in such circumstance: 'sorry, no problem'

 

Declarer looked at me and then called for the K, losing to the A... he had Jx and got a poor result. He never said a word, but I knew that he had marked me mentally as a coffee-houser or worse, and I was incredibly embarrassed.

I don't get your story.

- Wasn't your comment completely honest? Wouldn't you have much more of a problem with Axx? (Wouldn't it be much more coffee-housing saying "no problem" with Axx? Or breaking tempo with Qxx and saying nothing?)

- Anyway, shouldn't any decent declarer have noticed that you just had lost focus? Actually, what does breaking tempo after a long tank mean? (I have heard the recommendation to always stop for a second after a long tank by declarer, just in order not to do s.th. silly while still asleep...)

[pclayton]

No you can't hesitate with the intent to deceive.

 

A lot of the bridge laws have chosen to incorporate intent. Some things are illegal with malicious intent, but legal otherwise. This gives the cheaters an advantage because they can get away with a lot of stuff. But their peers always know, and their reputation is always smeered. I believe that more than anything keeps experts who may otherwise have cheated from cheating.

 

FWIW if I zone out and don't play in tempo, I will always say "sorry np." This is not required but I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

For those who say that hesitations online are meaningless, I think you're extremely wrong. You can very often read someones tempo online. If they've played the same tempo all the time and then alter it in a situation where they might need to think then it's safe to assume they were thinking. If they've consistently had random tempo variation (in situations where you cannot be deceived, just literally random) maybe theyre playing poker or something in the background and you know not to read into their tempo. If they consistently hesitate only in situations where you can be deceived then they're dishonest, but you can still use it to your advantage, just take the opposite inference. I love playing against people who fake hitch because they give me just as much info as those who hesitate for real.

One of my big pet peeves, and I've fallen victim to this three times lately is the tank pass with no extras to buy the contract.

 

Example:

 

1♣ - (1♠) - pass (2♣)

pass - (2♠) - pass (......................................pass)

 

A good 10-15 seconds (which is an eternity at the bridge table by the way) before the Pass.

 

Last time I saw this, dummy came down with: Qxx, KQxxx, Kxx, xx. WTF does he have to think about it, other than, "If I pass slow enough, I'll look like I have a 15 count and Opener won't want to balance in a fit auction" :P

[Guest Jlall]

No you can't hesitate with the intent to deceive.

 

A lot of the bridge laws have chosen to incorporate intent. Some things are illegal with malicious intent, but legal otherwise. This gives the cheaters an advantage because they can get away with a lot of stuff. But their peers always know, and their reputation is always smeered. I believe that more than anything keeps experts who may otherwise have cheated from cheating.

 

FWIW if I zone out and don't play in tempo, I will always say "sorry np." This is not required but I believe it is the right thing to do.

 

For those who say that hesitations online are meaningless, I think you're extremely wrong. You can very often read someones tempo online. If they've played the same tempo all the time and then alter it in a situation where they might need to think then it's safe to assume they were thinking. If they've consistently had random tempo variation (in situations where you cannot be deceived, just literally random) maybe theyre playing poker or something in the background and you know not to read into their tempo. If they consistently hesitate only in situations where you can be deceived then they're dishonest, but you can still use it to your advantage, just take the opposite inference. I love playing against people who fake hitch because they give me just as much info as those who hesitate for real.

One of my big pet peeves, and I've fallen victim to this three times lately is the tank pass with no extras to buy the contract.

 

Example:

 

1♣ - (1♠) - pass (2♣)

pass - (2♠) - pass (......................................pass)

 

A good 10-15 seconds (which is an eternity at the bridge table by the way) before the Pass.

 

Last time I saw this, dummy came down with: Qxx, KQxxx, Kxx, xx. WTF does he have to think about it, other than, "If I pass slow enough, I'll look like I have a 15 count and Opener won't want to balance in a fit auction" :P

His partner might have AJTxx Axx Qxx xx, in which case game is on a hook through the opening bidder roughly? Maybe his pard is not the type to overcall crappy hands, so that would be a fairly minimum type holding for partner. I would be cautious assuming someone is doing something with the intent to get you, especially with a hand like this. Does he know he doesn't want a balance anyways? Personally, I like when you balance as much as possible :P

 

I understand your point though. Just don't let them talk you out of a balance if you have a normal balance.

[Cascade]

Please note that after the opening lead u are allowed to take stock of dummy and the singleton rule does NOT apply.

Interestingly this is not based on the lawbook quote that you made. In fact you will not find it in the lawbook anywhere.