mannerisms with screens

[gordontd]

that the lead of the Jack should not be made with undue haste (which he thought was sleezy).

Whether or not it's sleazy, I think it's ineffective. If you play too quickly, your opponent will react with surprise whatever they have in their hand.

[gnasher]

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

So when you said "I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance", what was your point?

[blackshoe]

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently", but it seems to me that the one of the purposes of the screen is to prevent you from seeing the mannerisms of either player on the other side. I would not look favorably on a player who attempted to circumvent that purpose, whatever "intently" means.

[phil_20686]

There seems to me to be a clear difference between mannerisms, and hesitancy. Hesitancy is essentially a defensive error - a perfect defender would have considered all eventualities before the need to play a card arose. Those who think bridge is a purely intellectual sport think that mannerisms and other physical give-aways are different from the intellectual errors of hesitation.

 

However, I'm not really one of those people. I think its fine to draw inference from whether someone "looks confident" in the bidding, or when dummy hits, or even, in the absence of convincing information, to try to guess form declarers body language whether he is playing for a defensive error or a legitimate chance. (I lot of players put on a look of resigned indifference when playing a pseudo squeeze compared to intent card watching when making an actual squeeze, for example).

 

More ethically grey are the areas in which you try to temp the defence into giving something away. By playing unnaturally quickly perhaps, or by playing extremely slowly. Say i lead a J towards Kxx in dummy and lho plays and then i just wait "thinking", but really watching to see whether on of my opponents is reacting to the tension. I know several junior players who think it is fair practice to play quickly against the inexperienced, reasoning that the loss in accuracy in their own line is more than made up for by the increased number of mistakes made by the defence, largely because inexperienced players seldom manage to slow the tempo successfully, and feel under pressure to play quickly. Then again, I am not sure this is really any different than varying your pre-empt style vs less competent opposition. I know a number of players who will take more liberties in pre-empting vs weaker players because they feel the risk/reward ratio has been altered.

 

Anyway, thought I would stir the pot :(

[phil_20686]

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently", but it seems to me that the one of the purposes of the screen is to prevent you from seeing the mannerisms of either player on the other side. I would not look favorably on a player who attempted to circumvent that purpose, whatever "intently" means.

if this was true, why when "screens" were first introduced in the WC were they pyramids, so that you could see both opponents but not partner.

 

(I read that info in truscotts bridge on the great bridge scandal, it was incidental but i thought it was interesting - not sure how reliable it is).

[gnasher]

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently"

Whilst some of what has been said might be silly, I think the question of what is meant by Law L74C is quite a serious matter.

 

If it is illegal to intentionally look at your opponent's face in order to glean information, I know lots of players who routinely break the laws, and have no idea that they're doing anything wrong. That includes a number of well-respected players who have represented their country.

 

I'm sorry to hijack the thread like this, but it seems to me that until that question has been answered there isn't much point in considering what Law 74C means in the specific context of screens.

[blackshoe]

1. Gnasher: start a new thread.

2. Phil: I said I was no expert. I've never heard of this "pyramid" thing, so how the hell should I know the answer to that question?

[phil_20686]

Wikipedia quotes law 16 as:

Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

 

but that doesnt appear in the WBF copy on their website - is it possible the wording was changed when the new laws were issued in 2007? does anyone have a older copy? I have used the find function and no where in the laws is there any reference to the opponents mannerisms except that:

"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste."

 

Also one isn't allowed to do anything for the "purpose of disconcerting" your opponents, but I'm not sure trying to extract information from them is the same thing :(. I think that basically means you shouldn't try to annoy them so that they will play worse.

[blackshoe]

Wikipedia is quoting the 1997 law. This was a general statement at the beginning of the law. What followed as 16A is now 16B, and the general statement has been replaced by what is now 16A.

 

Also one isn't allowed to do anything for the "purpose of disconcerting" your opponents, but I'm not sure trying to extract information from them is the same thing. :D

 

Depends on how you try to extract the information. Thumbscrews are out, for example. :(

 

If someone is staring intently at me, I'll generally be disconcerted, or annoyed, or both.

[gnasher]

1. Gnasher: start a new thread.

So that bluejak, mjj29, wank, mrdct and I can all restate the opinions we've already expressed? What a marvellous idea.

 

If you really think it important that the two subjects be discussed independently, feel free to separate the thread into two yourself.

[Pict]

I also know players who intentionally and intently stare at opponents.

 

I don't know why they do it: it is mildly strange.

 

Of course they would gain no advantage from any players on this forum (super whatevers that we all are).

 

Gnasher is right about the meaning of intent(ion), as quite distinct from intently, or intentionally, or even with extreme attention. I thought his French example was already unnecessary, but maybe required to convince people with limited English.

[blackshoe]

1. Gnasher: start a new thread.

So that bluejak, mjj29, wank, mrdct and I can all restate the opinions we've already expressed? What a marvellous idea.

Glad you like it. :)

 

If you really think it important that the two subjects be discussed independently, feel free to separate the thread into two yourself.

 

I'll think about it.

[peachy]

Wikipedia quotes law 16 as:

Please understand that Wikipedia articles can be written by anybody and its texts and articles can be edited, expanded, shortened, and changed by anybody. For bridge laws, go to a legitimate source.

[pran]

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

So when you said "I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance", what was your point?

That it was an intentional (or deliberate) action of course.

 

Any such action for the apparent purpose of communicating to, or obtaining information from the other side of the screen defies the purpose of the screen and as such must be considered illegal.

[Vampyr]

What does it matter whether it is illegal or not? Has anyone ever tried this? I do not think that it is possible, from a seated position in your own chair, to get a glimpse of the face of the opponent on the other side of the screen.

[blackshoe]

Wikipedia quotes law 16 as:

Please understand that Wikipedia articles can be written by anybody and its texts and articles can be edited, expanded, shortened, and changed by anybody. For bridge laws, go to a legitimate source.

As it happens, wikipedia has accurately quoted the first part of the 1997 Law 16.

[gnasher]

That it was an intentional (or deliberate) action of course.

 

Any such action for the apparent purpose of communicating to, or obtaining information from the other side of the screen defies the purpose of the screen and as such must be considered illegal.

Can you quote the law or regulation (outside Australia) that makes it illegal?

[pran]

That it was an intentional (or deliberate) action of course.

 

Any such action for the apparent purpose of communicating to, or obtaining information from the other side of the screen defies the purpose of the screen and as such must be considered illegal.

Can you quote the law or regulation (outside Australia) that makes it illegal?

Laws 73 and 74 should make it generally clear.

The applicable regulation on screens should include a point on communication across the screen.

[gnasher]

Laws 73 and 74 should make it generally clear.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

 

The applicable regulation on screens should include a point on communication across the screen.

I agree that the screen regulations should include this. But in the WBF and the EBU they don't, so far as I can see.

[pran]

Laws 73 and 74 should make it generally clear.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

 

The applicable regulation on screens should include a point on communication across the screen.

I agree that the screen regulations should include this. But in the WBF and the EBU they don't, so far as I can see.

Our regulation does

[gnasher]

Our regulation does

Good. Unambiguously setting out what is and is not allowed is much better than just assuming that it's obvious, or relying on some distorted or fallacious interpretation of the laws.

[bluejak]

No doubt. But deciding what to do with the actual Laws and regulations is what these forums are about, ok the first three, despite several recent posts of what would be better. Of course unambiguous Laws and Regulations covering every single possible event would be better. However, saying so will not get us any forrarder in deciding matters where there is no such unambiguous Law or Regulation covering the situation cited in an OP.

[dburn]

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently", but it seems to me that the one of the purposes of the screen is to prevent you from seeing the mannerisms of either player on the other side. I would not look favorably on a player who attempted to circumvent that purpose, whatever "intently" means.

Oh, it is never silly to attempt to work out what the words in the Laws mean. It may be fruitless, because once you have worked them out there is a tendency for people to say "that is all very well, but it is obvious that when we used a word with meaning X we actually intended meaning Y".

 

But in this case there isn't really a problem - "intently" is the adverb from "intent", and "intent" as an adjective means [per the OED] "having the mind strenuously bent upon something; earnestly attentive, sedulously occupied, eager, assiduous; bent, resolved." Confusion with the notion of "purpose" (per "intentional" as opposed to "accidental") is just that - confusion.

 

The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

[gnasher]

But in this case there isn't really a problem - "intently" is the adverb from "intent", and "intent" as an adjective means [per the OED] "having the mind strenuously bent upon something; earnestly attentive, sedulously occupied, eager, assiduous; bent, resolved." Confusion with the notion of "purpose" (per "intentional" as opposed to "accidental") is just that - confusion.

 

The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

Not having a large enough house for the full OED, I have to make do with the NSOED. This offers two related but distinct meanings:

 

Intent: a

1. Having the mind concentrated on something; engrossed in an activity, etc; firmly resolved on a purpose.  (Foll by on, to do, upon.)

2. Of the faculties, a look, etc, directed with strained attention; intense.

Since we're dealing with a look rather than an activity, and the rules use the adverb "intently" rather than "intent upon", it seems clear to me that the second meaning is the one intended in the Laws.

 

Without screens, it is certainly possible to glance at an opponent's face intentionally, but not intensely or with strained attention. I think that you can do the same through the aperture of a screen too. But I'd welcome a statement from the L&EC that the former is illegal, which would make the latter illegal too.

[mrdct]

The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

Is there a difference between being "strenuously bent" and just "bent"?

 

Bent or otherwise, if the reason you are looking at your opponents is to pick-up some sort of read or tell, you are cheating.