Catalogue of Insanity?

[Deevan]

Prior to undertaking this study; or, developing a "reference table" for use in a Stratified game, we may need to first define "insanity", and its close variations; e.g.:

 

absent mindedness

distraction

misclick

illness

tiredness

mental block

inexperience

black swan

etc. etc.

 

Here is an example from a recent Regional Stratified event:

Contract: 3NT

Dummy (Expert) : xx,KJx,QT9876x,x

Declarer (Expert): KQxx, Axxx, A,KQxx

bidding 1C-x(declarer)-P-2D(dummy)-P-3NT-PPP

Lead: Small H-x-T-A

T2:DA,x,x,K

T3-13: Declarer thought of all types of endplays, squeezes; etc. Right or wrong he ended up down 2

 

The actual fact is that the RHO had DKJ; and, for some reason (your pick); he dropped the K. Was he showing a doubleton!! Obviously, it makes at least 9+ tricks if you wanted to take advantage of the situation.

 

You can debate the bidding or the best line of play, all you want. This to me is funny, to say the least.

 

Was it insanity or something else? where did it reside during this board?

 

How would a table be of help?

 

Yours was an interesting question to ask anyway! It generated some lively responses.

[Phil]

...black swan

etc. etc.

I can't speak for everyone here, but all of my errors are black swans :angry:

[kenrexford]

...black swan

etc. etc.

I can't speak for everyone here, but all of my errors are black swans :angry:

Many of mine are black velvet, but I think that's something different.

[eyhung]

Inducing psychological errors is an interesting line of study, though.  For example, here's one that is extremely reliable in club games - Let's say a suit is divided:

 

5 (dummy) - 2 (me, as declarer) - 3 -3, and I've played two rounds and ruffed a third, leaving two winners in dummy.  If I don't want RHO to ruff, for strategic reasons (maybe I want to pitch two losers and he has a trump winner, so I don't mind him ruffing the 5th one, but it would be bad if he ruffed the 4th), calling "small club" seems to get even above-average club players to pitch on the 4th one, even if they're the 10 and the 9.  I don't know if it means they think I don't know it's good, or what.

 

Conversely, if I want to INDUCE a ruff, calling "top club" works, even when they're the 3 and the 2.

 

Things that make you go Hmmm.

Maybe you don't even do it, but I think that's a terrible thing to do. I equate it to discarding a card of the same color as the suit declarer is playing in hopes he won't notice you showed out, which is something lots of people love to do and I think is horribly unethical. I understand it's difficult or even impossible to judge intent, but everyone has to be able to live with themselves. Why would someone want to win because they played a psychological trick on their opponent's speech of vision rather than because they played well?

I don't think purposely discarding black-on-black to perhaps induce a miscount is "unethical". How is it different from playing for a "stupid squeeze" (a non-functioning squeeze due to lack of entries or threats) when you have a running long suit? Sure, the opponents shouldn't be taken in by it, but barring time pressure, you owe it to your side to attempt the "stupid squeeze", especially at matchpoints. Similarly, if you are in a situation where you have to choose between two completely irrelevant suits, you might as well discard the same color if that adds a smidgen of percentage to your chances of a good result.

 

Usually when you sit down at a bridge table, you're trying to maximize your results within the boundaries of the rules and proprieties of the game. Last I checked, choosing to discard a card of the same color for the purpose of inducing a miscount does not violate those proprieties, because the opponents have an effective counter: they can pay attention!

[eyhung]

Let me preface by saying that I'm willing to reconsider my position on this, and I do practice active ethics.

 

Having said that, my belief is and has been (and I haven't considered this a close call, but maybe I've been wrong) that

 

1) It's not unethical; and

 

2) It's not "rather than" playing well; it's an example of playing well.

 

Essentially, I don't see it as any different than falsecarding.  If the layout were the same, but my hands were reversed, such that I had, say, a good 10 and 2 in my hand, and nobody else had any cards in the suit, I'd lead the 10 if I wanted my LHO to ruff, and the 2 if I wanted him to pitch.  Similarly, I imagine everyone with QJT9 in the closed hand leads the Q to induce a cover, and the 9 to avoid one.  In good faith, I do think it's the same situation, in principle.  But maybe I've been missing an ethical problem here.  I'd be interested in other perspectives.

I can't tell if you are mixing up which card to play with how you play it or if I'm misunderstanding your position, so sorry if it's the latter. There is certainly nothing wrong with playing (well, having partner play) the lower card from dummy. My objection would be if you normally say "club" to play the lowest or normally call the specific "9 of clubs", but in this case make a point to say "low club" in the hope of psychologically convincing your opponent to not realize it's an equal. Of course you can and should win based on the card you play, but not based on the manner in which you call for it. At least not by design.

I agree with this -- in fact, it's covered in the proprieties section of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge:

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

 

1. Inadvertent Variations

 

It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 

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.

 

------

 

There is nothing in the proprieties that states that it is wrong to attempt to deceive an opponent with which card he plays -- just merely the manner of it. So I would object to someone who deliberately changed their phrasing to "low club" to induce a ruff, but I would not object to someone who intentionally discards a club on spades.

[dake50]

Do y'all find this "insanity" increases with pressure/agressive bidding? Thus an intangible addition for active bidders.

 

Does the expectation of insanity suggest give up losers to them and hope for a gift? Instead of some 30% try to make by force?

 

Isn't this the Yin and Yang? Push like rock; flow like water? When is which ON?