Jump to content

Rule of restricted coice and the quack


leswt

Recommended Posts

I can just imagine the table questions to highlight this understanding... "In your experience, does your partner play any specific pattern from QJ tight"... "Have you ever discussed whether I'm a good or bad player?"...

 

This might open up a thread on how far disclosure is required. Humor was intended by Gibson, but could the question about pattern of play (when not related to signalling agreements) be asked and expect an answer?

Edited by aguahombre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might open up a thread on how far disclosure is required. Humor was intended by Gibson, but could the question about pattern of play (when not related to signalling agreements) be asked and expect an answer?

I would say no, and consequently I think it would often be ethical problematic to go ahead and ask questions like that. It is not poker. Playing mind games to induce an opponent to reveal his hand is not allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pisses me off when I see vugraph commentators talking about whether declarer (sunk in a long tank) should play for restricted choice or not (defenders having passed throughout etc), and when he drops QJ tight they applaud him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pisses me off when I see vugraph commentators talking about whether declarer (sunk in a long tank) should play for restricted choice or not (defenders having passed throughout etc), and when he drops QJ tight they applaud him.

Not every vugraph commentator excel at objectivity. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It pisses me off when I see vugraph commentators talking about whether declarer (sunk in a long tank) should play for restricted choice or not (defenders having passed throughout etc), and when he drops QJ tight they applaud him.

Why should it piss you off? Isn't bridge more than mathematics?

 

I have seen many players who try to play bridge as a purely mathematical game. I have seen a few players who have the guts to go against clinical mathematics and follow their table presence or take the psychology of the game into account. These players are capable of winning with what others call "bad bridge".

 

Of course, I don't know what happened in the particular case that you saw.

 

Rik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From #17, on I would like to see another thread dealing with (Duran) poker aspects of Bridge; (MFA101) ethics of certain questions; and (Gwnn) side effects of long tanks.

 

Here, we are going off on a tangent. I would have opened a new one, but had trouble quoting posts from other threads, naming it, and wording the kick-off. It takes someone smarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can just imagine the table questions to highlight this understanding... "In your experience, does your partner play any specific pattern from QJ tight"... "Have you ever discussed whether I'm a good or bad player?"...

I suppose it could be OK to ask and expect an answer to the first question but not to the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From #17, on I would like to see another thread dealing with (Duran) poker aspects of Bridge; (MFA101) ethics of certain questions; and (Gwnn) side effects of long tanks.

 

Here, we are going off on a tangent. I would have opened a new one, but had trouble quoting posts from other threads, naming it, and wording the kick-off. It takes someone smarter.

I think it's fine to derail a train that has stopped. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...