Trying to look like I got bad news

[peachy]

Would you read the thread "of course she doesnt have kqxxx " in the General Bridge Discussion forum. One poster offered a solution that I would have a problem with.

 

Is there a law that covers maneuvres like - "Trying to look like I got bad news" -

[blackshoe]

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

[peachy]

Thanks. Was too lazy to search for it, but I was sure it was covered.

[barmar]

I just thought of something. Does the ACBL procedure for use of the Stop card violate that law? It says that you're supposed to pause for 10 seconds, and make it seem like you're actually thinking during that time. The purpose of this procedure is to avoid giving UI to partner, but won't it also mislead the opponents? Or is this negated by the fact that the opponents expect you to behave this way, so as long as you're consistent about it it doesn't really mislead anyone?

[blackshoe]

I think the ACBLLC would argue that the regulation does not violate this law.

[bd71]

I played once with someone who, as declarer, showed notable disappointment/frustration after a defender chose to lead a certain suit...declarer adopted a sour look, slapped down his card quickly, and looked off into the distance in a "why me?" type of way. Turns out this was a ploy to get defender to continue that suit, which he did, and which permitted declarer to make the contract.

 

After which, declarer (who was friends with defender) asked something along the lines of "how did you like my performance?"

 

So, how does the quoted law apply to this behavior...is it unethical? Illegal? Something that the director could have been called on...and if so, with what appropriate ruling?

[blackshoe]

Deliberate violation of the rules of the game is unethical, so yes, the declarer's action in your example was both unethical and illegal. If the TD is called on a case like this, Law 73F tells him to adjust the score IAW Law 12C. A PP would also be appropriate (I would issue a warning for a first offense).

[Jlall]

The guy who said this presumably (hopefully) meant that by cashing the AK of clubs and then shifting suits after they showed out, he would seem like he was abandoning clubs because of "the bad news." This is a fairly well known deceptive play.

 

Obviously if he meant he would somehow physically act like he got the bad news, that is wrong.

 

Nobody would fault someone who said they would play a high-low signal to try to look like they had a doubleton.

[dellache]

The guy who said this presumably (hopefully) meant that by cashing the AK of clubs and then shifting suits after they showed out, he would seem like he was abandoning clubs because of "the bad news." This is a fairly well known deceptive play.

 

Obviously if he meant he would somehow physically act like he got the bad news, that is wrong.

 

I'm the guy who wrote this and let me state again that I would never suggest to *physically* act like I got bad news (like grimacing, or looking upset as if the roof fell in).

 

That being said, the whole thing is usually not as simple as it may appear. Unless you always play like a sphynx and are absolutely pokerface all the time with no breaks in tempo (a la Helgemo), sometimes your behaviour maybe subject to caution. Let's take this deceptive play of playing AK in a suit when you really don't care at all what the oppos play (you just make a diversion). Let's suppose you are NOT always pokerface, and play *from time to time* in a very slightly more relaxed manner *when you play a noncritical suit*. Would it be considered as a violation of the law if you played AK in a "let's stay focus" way as if the suit *might* be critical. Where's the limit ?

 

That reminds me a board where I had AQx behind KJTx in dummy. Opps were playing in 3NT. Declarer played low to the Jack. I had to make up my decision of doing the classical deceptive play of taking the Jack with the Ace instead of the Queen, in order to convince declarer to use his last entry to hand to repeat the "working" spade finesse. Situation was not that clear for me : in some cases this would actually declarer to make an otherwise unmakeable contract ! So I finally took my time, assessed the different chances, and decided that playing the Ace was the most likely way of defeating 3NT. Declarer came back to hand, repeated the finesse, went down, and called the director.

 

His claim : "Taking 20" before playing the Ace is a mannerism destined to make me think he could definitely NOT have the Queen" (declarer was a strong player, and knew I could make the deceiving play). Director ruled to 3NT making 9 tricks. The appeal comittee maintained the decision, and I got a procedural warning in the process.

 

I would be glad to have your opinion.

[Jlall]

My view is that if you do not have a pokerface and sometimes give away your holding because of that, it is your own fault. This doesn't give you the right to try and act a certain way to compensate for your lack of pokerface. Of course if you always had a concerned look on your face then that IS a pokerface, and you can keep it that way in all scenarios. Likewise if you always have a carefree look on your face you can keep it that way even when you have a problem. The key is maintaining the same look always. If you vary your face when you have a problem sometimes because you are human even though you usually have a carefree expression, it is still illegal to attempt to have the concerned face when you have no problem.

 

With respect to your director ruling/appeal, I think you got screwed. You had a legitimate problem, do you win the ace or the queen. Certainly winning the ace is an unusual play, not at all automatic, and you may take your time in deciding to do so.

[dellache]

My view is that if you do not have a pokerface and sometimes give away your holding because of that, it is your own fault. This doesn't give you the right to try and act a certain way to compensate for your lack of pokerface. Of course if you always had a concerned look on your face then that IS a pokerface, and you can keep it that way in all scenarios. Likewise if you always have a carefree look on your face you can keep it that way even when you have a problem. The key is maintaining the same look always. If you vary your face when you have a problem sometimes because you are human even though you usually have a carefree expression, it is still illegal to attempt to have the concerned face when you have no problem.

I think you stated it very clearly. The only remaining problem is that it may be very difficult for directors to judge if you really did violate the law or not, in borderline cases.

 

Does someone know why in bridge (contrary to poker) declarers are not allowed to physically-bluff ? i don't see any technical reason for that. Maybe an historical etiquette coming from the old days of bridge-whist ?

[kenrexford]

My view is that if you do not have a pokerface and sometimes give away your holding because of that, it is your own fault. This doesn't give you the right to try and act a certain way to compensate for your lack of pokerface. Of course if you always had a concerned look on your face then that IS a pokerface, and you can keep it that way in all scenarios. Likewise if you always have a carefree look on your face you can keep it that way even when you have a problem. The key is maintaining the same look always. If you vary your face when you have a problem sometimes because you are human even though you usually have a carefree expression, it is still illegal to attempt to have the concerned face when you have no problem.

 

With respect to your director ruling/appeal, I think you got screwed. You had a legitimate problem, do you win the ace or the queen. Certainly winning the ace is an unusual play, not at all automatic, and you may take your time in deciding to do so.

If you don't have a poker face, can you instead bombard the table with a controlled, but consistent, aura?

 

I mean, suppose you just cannot help but look upset when bad things happen. You try to look normal, but it fails. Could you instead try something different, like always crying whenever you declare? Or, laughing like a lunatic? Or even feigning orgasm? ("Oh God! That's yet another hot hand as dummy!") Maybe just always bounce nervously?

 

Sometimes it's easy to cover up than to hide.

 

I thought of this the other day. DNA evidence is so easy to get now, that really big crimes are too damn hard. People try washing and wearing gloves and such to keep from dumping DNA on the evidence. Well, what about a different approach? Get enough people together who have all of the main alleles of DNA in the FBI top 16 loci. Have them give blood. Take that blood and mix it up. Then, dump the blood everywhere. Maybe even develop a DNA spray in an aerosol can, for sale to criminals?

[aguahombre]

or just use the blood from one person in Arkansas.

[mrdct]

That reminds me a board where I had AQx behind KJTx in dummy. Opps were playing in 3NT. Declarer played low to the Jack. I had to make up my decision of doing the classical deceptive play of taking the Jack with the Ace instead of the Queen, in order to convince declarer to use his last entry to hand to repeat the "working" spade finesse.

You really should've thought this through when dummy came down rather than waiting until declarer actually plays on the suit. Whilst you had a legitimate problem to think about, you should've known that a long tank before playing the Ace could have the propensity to mislead declarer into thinking that you could not hold the Queen given the usual effectiveness of lulling declarer into thinking a finesse is working requires the play to be in tempo.

 

I'm inclinded to rule in favour of the non-offending side, but I think a warning is a bit harsh as I don't think you've done anything unethical - just poor technique in not deciding what to do with your your AQ a trick or two beforehand.

[kenrexford]

or just use the blood from one person in Arkansas.

roflol

[blackshoe]

roflol

Presumably, this means "rolling on floor laughing out loud". If this is the case, is the "l" in "rofl" ("rolling on floor laughing") silent? :)

[kenrexford]

roflol

Presumably, this means "rolling on floor laughing out loud". If this is the case, is the "l" in "rofl" ("rolling on floor laughing") silent? :)

It's sort of like a tree falling in a woods.

[campboy]

You really should've thought this through when dummy came down rather than waiting until declarer actually plays on the suit. Whilst you had a legitimate problem to think about, you should've known that a long tank before playing the Ace could have the propensity to mislead declarer into thinking that you could not hold the Queen given the usual effectiveness of lulling declarer into thinking a finesse is working requires the play to be in tempo.

Eh? If you need to play in tempo for the bluff to be effective, then how could he have known that failing to play in tempo was going to make the bluff more effective?

[Jlall]

I'm inclinded to rule in favour of the non-offending side, but I think a warning is a bit harsh as I don't think you've done anything unethical - just poor technique in not deciding what to do with your your AQ a trick or two beforehand.

I don't get it. Why does a slow ace deny the queen lol? The ace tends to deny the queen, but if they played a slow ace I would think they would be more likely to have AQ. Why does someone have to play a fast ACE with AQ?! I could see the case that a slow queen is unethical, but a slow ace? Jeez, he is falsecarding and making a highly unusual deceptive play. And he's doing it slowly! Seems pretty normal.

[duschek]

There is a standard position where you hold the KQx behind dummy's ace. Suppose declarer leads a small card off dummy. As I understand the general interpretation of Law 73, after a clear hesitation you cannot play the king to conceal the queen, claiming that your bridge problem was whether to play an honour card at all, because you could then gain from your hesitation misleading declarer.

 

I am not sure whether the case is fundamentally different when holding the AQ behind dummy's KJ10 as discussed here.

[Jeroen71]

You really should've thought this through when dummy came down rather than waiting until declarer actually plays on the suit.  Whilst you had a legitimate problem to think about, you should've known that a long tank before playing the Ace could have the propensity to mislead declarer into thinking that you could not hold the Queen given the usual effectiveness of lulling declarer into thinking a finesse is working requires the play to be in tempo.

 

As long as he had a legitimate bridge problem, it is irrelevant that the long tank could have the propensity to mislead declarer. Any inferences declarer makes are at his/her own risk (73D).

 

I'm inclinded to rule in favour of the non-offending side, but I think a warning is a bit harsh as I don't think you've done anything unethical - just poor technique in not deciding what to do with your your AQ a trick or two beforehand.

 

As no infraction has been committed, there is no offending side, so ruling in favour of the non-offending side becomes a meaningless phrase.

[bluejak]

There is a standard position where you hold the KQx behind dummy's ace. Suppose declarer leads a small card off dummy. As I understand the general interpretation of Law 73, after a clear hesitation you cannot play the king to conceal the queen, claiming that your bridge problem was whether to play an honour card at all, because you could then gain from your hesitation misleading declarer.

 

I am not sure whether the case is fundamentally different when holding the AQ behind dummy's KJ10 as discussed here.

It may be a standard position, but your interpretation is not standard. True some people think playing the king slowly is unethical. Others - including myself - do not.

 

In the actual case of AQx over dummy's KJT playing the ace slowly is not unethical. It is merely an attempt at the double shot if a declarer tries to claim it is.

[OleBerg]

There is a standard position where you hold the KQx behind dummy's ace. Suppose declarer leads a small card off dummy. As I understand the general interpretation of Law 73, after a clear hesitation you cannot play the king to conceal the queen, claiming that your bridge problem was whether to play an honour card at all, because you could then gain from your hesitation misleading declarer.

 

I am not sure whether the case is fundamentally different when holding the AQ behind dummy's KJ10 as discussed here.

To me it seems fundamentally different, as there is a technical difference betweem playing the ace and the queen, but not betweem the king and the queen in your example.

[mrdct]

I'm inclinded to rule in favour of the non-offending side, but I think a warning is a bit harsh as I don't think you've done anything unethical - just poor technique in not deciding what to do with your your AQ a trick or two beforehand.

I don't get it. Why does a slow ace deny the queen lol? The ace tends to deny the queen, but if they played a slow ace I would think they would be more likely to have AQ. Why does someone have to play a fast ACE with AQ?! I could see the case that a slow queen is unethical, but a slow ace? Jeez, he is falsecarding and making a highly unusual deceptive play. And he's doing it slowly! Seems pretty normal.

My main point is that defenders can avoid being put in this situation by planning their defence at trick one so they can make these sort of deceptive plays in tempo.

 

Generally speaking (there are obvious exceptions such as this one) a holding of AQx sitting over KJT is an automatic play of the cheapest honour to win the trick. I would be surprised if on defences with 100 random deals with AQx sitting over KJT there was potential gain in deceptively taking the J with A more than one in a hundred times. Accordingly, declarer is entitled to assume that a holding of AQx will play in tempo in this position; so when the defender tanks and then wins A, this is really only consistent with A to some number of pips.

 

Playing out of tempo is an infraction that has a propensity to create UI for partner and to inappropriately mislead declarer, hence declarer is imho the non-offender who has innocently and reasonably drawn an inference from the defender's slow play of the A that he doesn't hold the Q.

[bluejak]

That makes no sense. If he plays in tempo, declarer will assume he has not got the queen: if he plays out of tempo you say he is "misled" into thinking he has not got the queen.

 

The play of the ace denies the queen, though it could be a cunning ploy. This applies equally in or out of tempo. Playing out of tempo is not an infraction since giving UI to partner is not an infraction and declarer has no reason to be misled, since thinking that an out of tempo play means the same as an in-tempo play is not being misled.