mannerisms with screens

[wank]

assuming you want to observe the mannerisms of the opponent on the other side of the screen, what's legitimate? are you allowed to bend down and peer under the screen to try and get an angle at his face for example? are you just allowed to see his hands?

 

does it make any difference if you're declarer, or the opponent on the other side of the screen is the declarer?

[mrdct]

Any communication across the two sides of the screen during the play of the hand is highly improper. Moreover, I think it's quite unethical to try to deliberately observe the mannerisms of your opponents with or without screens anyway.

 

The relevant Australian regulation (which I presume is similar in other jurisdictions):

 

1.4 From the time that the screen is closed at the beginning of a hand to the conclusion of the play of that hand, there is to be no oral communication at the table and no player is permitted to communicate with players on the other side of the screen except through the Director.

[gordontd]

L74C

Violations of Procedure

The following are examples of violations of procedure:

 

5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at

another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of

observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate

to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s

card).

[gnasher]

I've never quite understood the significance of "intently" in this law. Does it mean that it's OK to glance briefly at an opponent in order to gain information from his manner?

 

For example, without screens some players will have a quick look at declarer's face as dummy goes down. Is that OK?

 

With screens, you might glance at his hands to see if they're shaking. Is that OK?

 

Or, you do as Wank suggests, and bend down for a quick look at declarer's face, taking care neither to do so intently nor to see partner's face. Please tell me that's not allowed.

[bluejak]

These are all done with intent, ie intently, so not allowed.

 

You do not look at opponents to find out mannerisms. If any come your way without your looking for them then they are justified for use.

[mjj29]

These are all done with intent, ie intently, so not allowed.

That's not the definition I have in my dictionary:

In an intent manner; with strained attention or close application; earnestly, eagerly.

And, to anticipate the next question, intent as an adjective means:

1. Having the mind strenuously bent upon something; earnestly attentive, sedulously occupied, eager, assiduous; bent, resolved.  2. Of the faculties, looks, etc.: Directed with strained or keen attention; earnest, eager, keen; intense. 3. Intensely active. Opposed to remiss

They aren't the same derivation as "intent" the noun.

[zenko]

"You can observe a lot just by watching." - Yogi Berra

[gnasher]

Is it possible that the lawmakers were under the same misapprehension as David, and they really meant "intentionally"? That would, IMO, be a much better rule.

[wank]

certainly i've never considered it inappropriate to glance at my opps, and the way i read the law i don't think intently means 'with intent'. i don't sit there staring at them, but i think there's a happy medium.

[mrdct]

I don't know how much more "intently" one can get than bending down and peering through the screen aperture so the scenario in the OP is clearly not on.

 

Players who purposefully watch their opponents' mannerisms with the intent of gathering extra clues on how to play the hand are scumbags and should go away and play a different game.

[gnasher]

I don't know how much more "intently" one can get than bending down and peering through the screen aperture so the scenario in the OP is clearly not on.

You can bend down and stare at the player, or you can bend down and take a quick glance before resuming your normal position. The former is to do it intently; the latter is not. Both are done intentionally, but that appears to be irrelevant.

[pran]

I don't know how much more "intently" one can get than bending down and peering through the screen aperture so the scenario in the OP is clearly not on.

You can bend down and stare at the player, or you can bend down and take a quick glance before resuming your normal position. The former is to do it intently; the latter is not. Both are done intentionally, but that appears to be irrelevant.

I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance.

 

Bending down for a view through the aperture is not something you do incidentally.

[mjj29]

Players who purposefully watch their opponents' mannerisms with the intent of gathering extra clues on how to play the hand are scumbags and should go away and play a different game.

See, that's interesting, because I always thought that law was there to stop you putting the opponents off by staring at them, not about whether you can use their mannerisms to decide how to play the hand. After all:

... Inferences from such variation (in tempo or manner) may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

So, it is appropriate to draw inferences from an opponents variation in manner, albeit at your own risk. 73F says:

... if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo or the like of an opponent

If observing your opponent and drawing inferences from their manner is illegal then the laws would not protect you when doing so, nor would they refer to you as 'innocent'.

[mjj29]

I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance.

 

Bending down for a view through the aperture is not something you do incidentally.

As I said above, please do not confuse 'intently' with 'with intent' - they are not the same word!

 

I won't quote the OED again, look up thread, but "intently" means "with an intense manner", not "on purpose". Whether or not you deliberately did something is irrelevant to whether you did it intently.

[gnasher]

I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance.

So what? The rules do not say anything about "intent".

 

To avoid any further confusion between the English words "intently" and "intent", perhaps we should consider the French version of the rules:

 

regarder attentivement un autre joueur pendant les annonces et le jeu

Are you looking "attentivement" if you briefly lean down to glance at declarer's face?

[gwnn]

Well I don't know but if I was declarer and a defender leaned down to 'glance at my face' it would annoy me a little and I don't think I'm alone in this universe who agrees with this. It just does not strike me as a very courteous action. Which one was the Law that said you shouldn't interfere with opps' enjoyment of the game?

 

How about definition number 3 from dictionary.com?

 

determined or resolved; having the mind or will fixed on some goal: intent on revenge.

Don't I have my mind fixed on some goal when I take a completely unnatural pose only in the hopes of getting some information from declarer's face? It does not seem relevant to me how many milliseconds I am looking at his face, I think my act was quite determined and resolved. Unless you are casually leaning down every other trick because your of your back condition, it is an unusual act and it takes some determination to pursue this idea.

 

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: intent

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin intentus, from past participle of intendere

Date: 14th century

1 : directed with strained or eager attention : concentrated

2 : having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something or some end or purpose <intent on their work>

— in·tent·ly adverb

— in·tent·ness noun

I don't see how any of this definition includes temporal dimensions... Just to make my post a little longer I will include this definition of eager from Merriam-Webster:

eager: marked by enthusiastic or impatient desire or interest

Don't tell me you don't need to be enthusiastically or impatiently interested to lean down and look at your opponent.

[gnasher]

Well I don't know but if I was declarer and a defender leaned down to 'glance at my face' it would annoy me a little and I don't think I'm alone in this universe who agrees with this.

Yes. That would be a good time to have one of those slightly rickety screens where the flap doesn't stay up properly. It wouldn't be my fault if I happened to nudge the table leg at the same time as he stuck his head near the flap, would it?

 

I don't see how any of this definition includes temporal dimensions...

You're right, but it does imply something about the manner and intensity of the action.

 

Look at is this way: there is a perfectly good English word "intentionally", which means "done with intent". If the lawmakers meant to say that, they would have done so (unless, and I rather doubt this, they simply made a mistake).

 

Anyway, forgetting the question of screens for a moment, I'd really like to know whether it is in general permissible to glance at an opponent's face in the hope of gleaning information. I'd like it to be illegal, and personally I never do it, but so far as I can see the lawmakers intentionally phrased the laws in such a way as to make it legal. If that's the case, I don't think there's anything improper about doing it.

[mjj29]

Anyway, forgetting the question of screens for a moment, I'd really like to know whether it is in general permissible to glance at an opponent's face in the hope of gleaning information. I'd like it to be illegal, and personally I never do it, but so far as I can see the lawmakers intentionally phrased the laws in such a way as to make it legal. If that's the case, I don't think there's anything improper about doing it.

L73D1 which I posted would seem to allow it. Doesn't everyone with KJ9x facing AT8x and no other information start taking the finesse on way and see which opponent flinches to decide whether to go up and take it on the way back instead?

[wank]

considering the propensity people have to understand particular words in whichever way supports their prejudices, i definitely agree with gnasher and mjj that if the lawmakers had intended 'intently' to mean 'intentionally' they would for sure have used the word 'intentionally' itself, and that as such looking at one's opponents intentionally but not intently (fixedly) is permitted. as we're often told, what's permitted by law is ethical so one presumes not symptomatic of scum-bagtitude.

 

i think anyone who doesn't have a quick look at the opps when they lead the jack from AJT towards dummy's Kxx is living in a parallel universe.

 

as for the original question, i was deliberately going to an extreme, but so far noone's come up with a good argument for why this isn't permitted either - the australian regulation quoted by mrdct pertains to communication from one side of the screen to the other - i wouldn't say looking at declarer constituted communication.

[bluejak]

L73D1 which I posted would seem to allow it. Doesn't everyone with KJ9x facing AT8x and no other information start taking the finesse on way and see which opponent flinches to decide whether to go up and take it on the way back instead?

Sure, but I do not look at them.

 

<glares at LHO> <leads ten> "Well, sucker, it's your play, wadda ya goin' to do 'bout it? :)

 

having the mind, attention, or will concentrated on something or some end or purpose

Looking at the opponent with intent seems much the same to me as this definition. Not identical, no, and maybe the Laws people wanted it to be slightly different.

[gwnn]

That's a very convenient way of posting. Ask a question, then when you don't like the arguments, post just that (nobody came up with a good argument so far), don't post counterarguments. Maybe come back after a few days and repeat.

[pran]

I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance.

 

Bending down for a view through the aperture is not something you do incidentally.

As I said above, please do not confuse 'intently' with 'with intent' - they are not the same word!

 

I won't quote the OED again, look up thread, but "intently" means "with an intense manner", not "on purpose". Whether or not you deliberately did something is irrelevant to whether you did it intently.

I am not aware that I used the word "intently" nor that I implied what is meant by that word?

[wank]

That's a very convenient way of posting. Ask a question, then when you don't like the arguments, post just that (nobody came up with a good argument so far), don't post counterarguments. Maybe come back after a few days and repeat.

ah yes, not quite as convenient as your way of posting though which is to ignore the intent of posts and goto the dictionary to try and score some technical point due to the poster's lazy or mistaken (often because english isn't their first language) use of a word.

 

ironically, if you adopted the same approach with the wording of the laws, you'd be making a helpful contribution.

 

anyway, aside from being unconstructive, your post is plain wrong. yes, i asked a question, but almost all replies were to a different question, so it's understandable that i 'don't like the arguments'. also i made a counter-argument, both to the 1 reply to the question i asked, and to the many replies to the question i didn't ask.

[gwnn]

So using a dictionary is not OK, we should just accept that intently means fixedly? I am sorry I just don't understand what you mean. I don't see how looking up words from the laws in the dictionary is wrong. I do agree with your assessment that looking up words from internet forum posts to prove that they have been carelessly worded is rather foolish, but I do not think I am guilty of that, at least not in this thread. Please show me how I did that, perhaps I will see I was wrong, perhaps you will see you were wrong, or some combination of the two.

 

I did not try to score a technical point, I was trying to argue for why even a short glance can fall under the category of 'intently'. The word 'intently' is in the laws, and whether or not it can be applied to the action you described is quite crucial. Just saying that 'intently' is equivalent to 'fixedly' and is therefore not applicable is not good enough in my opinion.

[aguahombre]

i think anyone who doesn't have a quick look at the opps when they lead the jack from AJT towards dummy's Kxx is living in a parallel universe. 

 

This exact situation came to mind while reading all the verbage, here. One of the (agreed by all at the time) most ethical players some 40 years ago talked about this particular common occurence.

 

He had two points: first, that people glance at the wrong opponent and should be noticing what 4th hand to play was doing; second that the lead of the Jack should not be made with undue haste (which he thought was sleezy).

 

I think the Laws were not intended to prevent players from observing body language or other "tells" (of opponents only, of course). That is part of live bridge, a part that makes computerizing the game undesirable because it actually creates a different game.

 

Obviously peering under the screen, or absurd and intimidating stares are different.