Can he do this?

[aguahombre]

With your comment above Gordon what woould you do as TD 'IF' a player was aware of this person doing it and then 'Deliberately gave wrong information by sorting his hand to give the impression of say a '2 Suited' hand instead of a Balanced hand ??

 

:rolleyes:

I am not Gordon, but I would go away from the table laughing.

[barmar]

No it doesn't. It says that if an opponent varies his tempo you may draw inferences from it. It doesn't say that you may vary your own tempo and then draw inferences from the opponents' reactions.

But you're allowed to vary your tempo if you have a bridge reason for it. And trying to decide which way to finesse seems like a valid reason to go into the tank.

 

I've been in that position. What's going through my mind is something like "Damn, he didn't cover -- now what should I do?" or "he followed smoothly -- is he good enough to do that without a hitch?".

 

It would be nice if we could plan these kinds of things ahead of time, so we could continue smoothly at this point. But I don't think we should attribute a tank at this point to an intentional attempt to induce a tell rather than just poor decision making.

[gnasher]

But you're allowed to vary your tempo if you have a bridge reason for it. And trying to decide which way to finesse seems like a valid reason to go into the tank.

Yes, of course it is. I didn't suggest otherwise.

 

But I don't think we should attribute a tank at this point to an intentional attempt to induce a tell rather than just poor decision making.

I didn't suggest that we should do that either.

 

My comments were specifically about the action described by Stefanie, which was "leading a card in a suit in which you have a two-way finesse as above, and taking (sometimes considerable) time to see if you can get a tell on one of the opponents". That is, I was discussing the legality of pausing in the hope that a "tell" will occur during the pause.

[barmar]

I just think you're all too cynical if you think someone going into the tank is trying to do anything but make a decision rather than induce something in the opponents. "Sominix coup" is generally referred to jokingly, I'd never accuse someone of trying to pull it off intentionally.

 

Even 74C7 doesn't seem appropriate. While the tank might disconcert the opponent, I doubt it's the purpose. The purpose is to make a decision when you have no information to go on.

[gnasher]

I just think you're all too cynical if you think someone going into the tank is trying to do anything but make a decision rather than induce something in the opponents.

I didn't say I thought that. I said that *if* they pause for the purpose of inducing a tell, it is illegal. If they pause for the purpose of thinking, of course it is legal.

[barmar]

I didn't say I thought that. I said that *if* they pause for the purpose of inducing a tell, it is illegal. If they pause for the purpose of thinking, of course it is legal.

OK, fair enough. But I don't think it's very meaningful, since I'm not sure how you would ever tell that they're doing it.

 

I guess that applies to 74C7 in general. Although in many cases the director may be able to look at the hand and see that there's nothing for the player to think about, so he might conclude that the pause could only be to disconcert the opponents. If there actually is a difficult decision, it would be hard to rule against the player for going into the tank.

[TimG]

I've been in that position. What's going through my mind is something like "Damn, he didn't cover -- now what should I do?" or "he followed smoothly -- is he good enough to do that without a hitch?".

In these cases, haven't you given considerable thought to which way you will finesse before you led the suit to begin with? It's not typical to lead a suit in which you have a two-way finesse and then stop to count things and consider the combination only after one defender has followed, one thinks before leading the suit. I think declarer should generally know what they will do if an opponent follows low (or with a meaningful spot). This doesn't mean declarer can't take an additional moment to consider a pause or hitch or whatever from an opponent, or to count once again just to make sure. But, I don't think declarer should be in need of "tank time" after leading the suit and seeing one defender's card.

[CSGibson]

I just think you're all too cynical if you think someone going into the tank is trying to do anything but make a decision rather than induce something in the opponents. "Sominix coup" is generally referred to jokingly, I'd never accuse someone of trying to pull it off intentionally.

 

 

Here in the wild wild west there are frequent serious accusations of pulling off Sominix coups intentionally against a couple of our better players. That, and the matchpoint strategy of using 10 minutes on the first hand so that the other pair will feel rushed on the accompanying board.

[pigpenz]

I guess you can always sort your hands under the table if you need to sort them

[gnasher]

OK, fair enough. But I don't think it's very meaningful, since I'm not sure how you would ever tell that they're doing it.

It's meaningful to anyone who wants to play by the rules.

[barmar]

In these cases, haven't you given considerable thought to which way you will finesse before you led the suit to begin with? It's not typical to lead a suit in which you have a two-way finesse and then stop to count things and consider the combination only after one defender has followed, one thinks before leading the suit. I think declarer should generally know what they will do if an opponent follows low (or with a meaningful spot). This doesn't mean declarer can't take an additional moment to consider a pause or hitch or whatever from an opponent, or to count once again just to make sure. But, I don't think declarer should be in need of "tank time" after leading the suit and seeing one defender's card.

if you're hoping that "table feel" will guide you, you may have to wait until after leading.

[Finch]

In these cases, haven't you given considerable thought to which way you will finesse before you led the suit to begin with? It's not typical to lead a suit in which you have a two-way finesse and then stop to count things and consider the combination only after one defender has followed, one thinks before leading the suit. I think declarer should generally know what they will do if an opponent follows low (or with a meaningful spot). This doesn't mean declarer can't take an additional moment to consider a pause or hitch or whatever from an opponent, or to count once again just to make sure. But, I don't think declarer should be in need of "tank time" after leading the suit and seeing one defender's card.

 

Specifically for a two-way finesse you might be right, but it's quite common for me to stop and think after the first two cards have been played to a trick.

Typically a position is something like

 

KJ10x opposite A98xx

 

and I have extra information from the bidding/play to date that makes me think hard about playing RHO for Qxx. I won't make that decision until after I've cashed the king, led the jack and RHO has played low because there's a reasonable chance that either the queen has appeared by then or RHO has shown out. There's no point taking a long time over a decision that you might not need to make.

[lamford]

I'm beginning to wonder if it's L90 we should be using.

I'm beginning to wonder if no law is actually broken. It is easy for someone to prevent the opponent seeing the hand being sorted, for example by doing so below the level of the table. Perhaps it is just good practice to sort your hand in a way that the opponent can get no information.

 

And I cannot see how one can conclude anything if the person sorting selects a random card and places it in the correct position in relation to the other cards. All that the viewer can glean is that the seventh card was selected and was placed in the fourth place. If someone foolishly starts with spades and concludes with clubs, they are just making a mistake, and this is correctly punished. There is no need for laws to protect these hapless individuals.

[lamford]

This means that you get many people taking their cards from the board, looking at them, and then moving a number of cards equal to their number of aces.

Only on the first occasion the hand is played in that session, and only then if the organiser is negligent in not shuffling the hand after the hopper has dealt it.

[barmar]

There is no need for laws to protect these hapless individuals.

Are you seriously suggesting blaming the victim? Was he "asking for it" by sorting his hand in such an easy-to-read manner?

[gnasher]

I'm beginning to wonder if no law is actually broken.

Why do you think 74C5 isn't being broken?

[lamford]

Why do you think 74C5 isn't being broken?

Which of the following do you think the action might be (my extra punctuation)?

a) looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or

b) at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards, or

c) of observing the place from which he draws a card.

 

Note that it does not say "for example", here. In my opinion, a) refers to the player himself or herself, b) refers to the faces of the cards and c) can only apply to the play as "drawing" a card is not part of the sorting process. Do you think differently? And in the case of a), I don't think changing it to read "during the hand" would matter much.

[gordontd]

c) can only apply to the play as "drawing" a card is not part of the sorting process.

I wondered in #36 above if it might be.

[lamford]

Are you seriously suggesting blaming the victim? Was he "asking for it" by sorting his hand in such an easy-to-read manner?

Actually, it is pretty difficult to convey information to an opponent by sorting your hand normally, so, yes. But why not have screens which players can "hide" their hands behind, and that will make it harder for them to show their cards to people, a much greater problem? And while we are protecting the weak, we can remove the revoke penalty and make insufficient bids correctable free of charge ...

[lamford]

I wondered in #36 above if it might be.

But even if "drawing" is part of the sorting process, it is the replacement of the card after drawing that conveys information, not the drawing. The card might have started anywhere, assuming the cards have been shuffled.

[gordontd]

Actually, it is pretty difficult to convey information to an opponent by sorting your hand normally,

I used to play bridge with a former military cryptologist, who said that he had to avoid looking at me while I sorted my hand because he could tell too much about it from my sorting. I think I sort fairly normally.

[billw55]

If four color cards were standard, it would much easier to play without sorting (or with more minimal / less revealing sorting). I wish that was the case.

[gnasher]

Which of the following do you think the action might be (my extra punctuation)?

a) looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or

b) at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards, or

c) of observing the place from which he draws a card.

 

Note that it does not say "for example", here. In my opinion, a) refers to the player himself or herself, b) refers to the faces of the cards and c) can only apply to the play as "drawing" a card is not part of the sorting process. Do you think differently? And in the case of a), I don't think changing it to read "during the hand" would matter much.

As I said in post #37, "as for" means that what follows is an example or examples. If what followed were definitive, it would simply be "for".

 

The law that is being broken is "looking ... at another player's hand ... for the purpose [for example] of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card."

Edited August 16, 2012 by gnasher

[lamford]

The law that is being broken is "looking ... at another player's hand ... for the purpose [for example] of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card."

the last part does not have "as for the purpose" in, and his purpose is not observing the place from which the player draws the card (that is of no relevance and is merely an indication of where the card alighted in a random shuffle). His purpose is of "observing the place in which the player replaces the card". I bow to gordontd's greater experience of such things, as I cannot see how one can get any meaningful information except perhaps from the number of cards partner moves. If no card is moved, that must increase the chance of the hand having been passed out, but a breach of 7C will probably have occurred.

[aguahombre]

I don't think Andy and Lamford's debate can have any value until they address the Law, which Andy insists (and I hope correctly, but don't know) only gives examples of purposes for looking at the opponent's hand. What Lamford is posting does not seem to agree with that contention, but rather ignores Andy's assertion.