Reading your opponent

[gombo121]

An curious question have been raised during a postmortem.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak86hdt9862caqj5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p4h?]133|200[/hv]

What do you bid as South?

 

OK, that's an interesting question, though not for this forum but for postmortem or possibly for Master Solvers' Club. A player who took part in the discussion stated the following: "I play double for penalty in those colors, so I'm going to bid 4♠ and watch for the opponent's reaction. If I don't like it, I'll run to 4NT."

 

How do you feel, is this approach (consciously trying to read "tells" off your opponents) acceptable within the letter and/or spirit of the Law or not?

 

 

Edit: Let me spell this out, since my writeup causes confusion.

Certainly, you can't run anywhere if 4♠ are passed all round but at those colors it's probably OK. If the intent is to run any double, than it presumably would be stated as such. So the point is that the player wants to run some doubles but not all of them depending on possible mannerisms of the opponents. Law 74C5, as stated by blackshoe, seems to be relevant as well as Law 73D1, but which way it leans?

Edited January 17, 2013 by gombo121

[TylerE]

How exactly do you to to 4NT when 4♠ gets passed out?

[blackshoe]

How exactly do you to to 4NT when 4♠ gets passed out?

You don't, but that's not relevant.

 

It is appropriate to take note of opponents' reactions and other mannerisms. It is not appropriate to "look intently" at another player for the purpose (Law 74C5).

 

Edit: I didn't vote in the poll because the correct answer ("none of the above") isn't in there.

[pran]

If the reaction he doesn't like is DOUBLE (in which case he will run) then that is perfectly OK.

 

But frankly I have a strong feeling that any call other than PASS or DOUBLE by South is suicide.

[gombo121]

Edit: I didn't vote in the poll because the correct answer ("none of the above") isn't in there.

Pardon me, I thought I had all my bases covered :) What kind of choice would you like?

 

P.S.: I made an addition to the original post to clear things up. And also, I suggest to leave bridge merits of the approach beyond our scope at the moment.

[pigpenz]

So much for screens :rolleyes:

Anyway this is not in the spirit of the game

[blackshoe]

Pardon me, I thought I had all my bases covered :) What kind of choice would you like?

 

P.S.: I made an addition to the original post to clear things up. And also, I suggest to leave bridge merits of the approach beyond our scope at the moment.

How about "it depends on how you do it?" I did mention that "looking intently" is a no-no.

 

So much for screens :rolleyes:

Anyway this is not in the spirit of the game

Um. What is the referent of "this"?

 

So much for screens? What do you mean?

[WellSpyder]

I think this is fine. I also think it is stupid!

 

It is a poor idea partly because unless oppo are very inexperienced you may well not get the information you are looking for from them. But more importantly, if any at all of your "table reading" comes from partner then you have completely fixed yourself.

[gombo121]

How about "it depends on how you do it?" I did mention that "looking intently" is a no-no.

 

I'm not sure I get your meaning.

You do not expect to be able to judge degree of intent in somebody watching someone at the table (never mind agreeing about that), do you?

Or do you mean it is OK to do it covertly, but not openly? I meant this case to fall into "breaking spirit not letter" category.

[barmar]

Law 74C5 says the following isn't allowed:

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*).

Basically, you're not allowed to stare at another player. You're allowed to notice tells from opponents (73D1 says you can draw inferences at your own risk), but you're not allowed to try to induce them by glaring at the player.

 

Probably a more familiar situation that's similar to the OP is when you have a two-way finesse with AJT in hand opposite Kxx. You lead the J from hand and try to notice whether LHO hitches before playing low. The question is: is it in the spirit of the game to make this play with the specific purpose of trying to read LHO?

[blackshoe]

Probably a more familiar situation that's similar to the OP is when you have a two-way finesse with AJT in hand opposite Kxx. You lead the J from hand and try to notice whether LHO hitches before playing low. The question is: is it in the spirit of the game to make this play with the specific purpose of trying to read LHO?

I don't see why not.

[pigpenz]

it can be part of the game called table presence....but suppose opp hitches with nothing.

Remember a club game in Omaha where someone did Q ask after RKCB, and opp holding Q trump

asked if the partner of the bidder had it!!!!

 

now how would you read that one????

its a fair question, but how misleading is it???

[blackshoe]

Is it a fair question? I think it depends on why it's asked. Law 73D2 prohibits asking in order to deceive the opponents. If the player who asks holds the Queen, why did he ask?

[sfi]

it can be part of the game called table presence....but suppose opp hitches with nothing.

Remember a club game in Omaha where someone did Q ask after RKCB, and opp holding Q trump

asked if the partner of the bidder had it!!!!

 

now how would you read that one????

its a fair question, but how misleading is it???

 

I did this once by accident - I had simply forgotten my trump holding. Declarer had no problems taking the two way finesse the correct way. I suspect that to this day he thought I was trying to be sneaky.

[pigpenz]

LOL

that was good for them.

I always wonder what a committee or TD would rule on this when delcarer gets it wrong?

it would seem like it might be a NO LOSE situation for delcarer.

[Trinidad]

Is it a fair question? I think it depends on why it's asked. Law 73D2 prohibits asking in order to deceive the opponents. If the player who asks holds the Queen, why did he ask?

He might want to know whether the responder showed the queen. This could be important to infer whether there might still be an ace or trump king missing. It could also be important to infer extra length with the responder.

 

Another reason why the player might ask is because he was asking about the whole auction. It would be a little silly to ask about the meaning of every single bid, except for the reply to the queen ask: "Yes, 5+ spades, thank you. Oh, splinter, good. OK, cue, and another cue, all right. RKCB, yep. 1 or 4, got it. Asking for the queen, makes sense. No, I don't want to know the meaning of that one.. ...And I suppose that 6♠ meant he wanted to play there?"

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between asking about a specific call, which is what the poster said happened, and asking about the entire auction. And I don't know about anyone else, if I ask about the whole auction, I don't say anything until opps are done explaining.

[RMB1]

Not quite the same, but I had a case where a defender (on lead, with trump Q) asked about 5H response to 4NT, "2 aces", defender "denying queen of trumps?", declarer "yes". Declarer failed to locate the trumps queen in the play and asked for a ruling but got no redress. They appealed and lost the appeal (and their deposit). The AC said that once declarer had given an incomplete answer, the opponent could ask for clarification whatever his holding. Effectively, once there has been an incomplete or inadequate explanation, there is always a demonstrable bridge reason to seak clarification.

[gordontd]

Not quite the same, but I had a case where a defender (on lead, with trump Q) asked about 5H response to 4NT, "2 aces", defender "denying queen of trumps?", declarer "yes". Declarer failed to locate the trumps queen in the play and asked for a ruling but got no redress. They appealed and lost the appeal (and their deposit). The AC said that once declarer had given an incomplete answer, the opponent could ask for clarification whatever his holding. Effectively, once there has been an incomplete or inadequate explanation, there is always a demonstrable bridge reason to seak clarification.

Yes, this is quite right. Were it not to be so, players who failed to give full information would be rewarded by an improved chance of picking up missing trump queens. "He asked, so his partner must hold it" or "he didn't ask, so he may well hold it".

[c_corgi]

Yes, this is quite right. Were it not to be so, players who failed to give full information would be rewarded by an improved chance of picking up missing trump queens. "He asked, so his partner must hold it" or "he didn't ask, so he may well hold it".

 

I very much agree in principle, but in this case it doesn't seem certain that incomplete information has been given: the response could simply have meant "2 aces", without reference to the queen of trumps or indeed any other card. What would be the outcome if the potentially misleading question had been in response to complete disclosure?

[barmar]

Isn't this essentially the same as the issue in a thread last year about asking about whether an honor lead denies a particular card when declarer is looking at the card in his hand?

[Trinidad]

There's a difference between asking about a specific call, which is what the poster said happened, and asking about the entire auction. And I don't know about anyone else, if I ask about the whole auction, I don't say anything until opps are done explaining.

I reread the post and nowhere does he state that this was the only call asked for. In fact, he doesn't state any context in which the question was asked.

 

You asked why ("in what context?") one would ask about a queen ask when one can see the queen in his own hand and I gave you two examples of reasons/contexts. Both contexts were entirely consistent with the information in pigpenz' post.

 

And I don't know about anyone else, if I ask about the whole auction, I don't say anything until opps are done explaining.

It is nice that you do it that way. I sometimes point at each individual call in the auction, which is then explained to me.

 

One reason is that I don't want an explanation like "I have been relaying and he has shown ...". Many people like explanations like that, but I don't, since it doesn't show what decisions the relayer made (why did he continue the relaying or why did he stop?).

A second reason is that I am controlling the tempo of the explanation, so that I can make sure that I understand what is said, before we move on to the next call.

A third reason is that I can ask follow up questions about each individual call immediately (e.g. "Was it forcing?", "Does fast arrival apply here?" or (after 4♣ has been explained as an Italian cue) "Do you play serious or frivolous 3NT (or something else for 3NT)?").

 

I am not the only one who asks for explanations in this way. And there are a lot of other ways people ask for explanations.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I reread the post and nowhere does he state that this was the only call asked for. In fact, he doesn't state any context in which the question was asked.

 

You asked why ("in what context?") one would ask about a queen ask when one can see the queen in his own hand and I gave you two examples of reasons/contexts. Both contexts were entirely consistent with the information in pigpenz' post.

 

 

It is nice that you do it that way. I sometimes point at each individual call in the auction, which is then explained to me.

 

One reason is that I don't want an explanation like "I have been relaying and he has shown ...". Many people like explanations like that, but I don't, since it doesn't show what decisions the relayer made (why did he continue the relaying or why did he stop?).

A second reason is that I am controlling the tempo of the explanation, so that I can make sure that I understand what is said, before we move on to the next call.

A third reason is that I can ask follow up questions about each individual call immediately (e.g. "Was it forcing?", "Does fast arrival apply here?" or (after 4♣ has been explained as an Italian cue) "Do you play serious or frivolous 3NT (or something else for 3NT)?").

 

I am not the only one who asks for explanations in this way. And there are a lot of other ways people ask for explanations.

 

Rik

I go with the evidence presented. That evidence is that the player asked whether the response to 4NT showed the queen. No evidence was presented that he asked about anything else.

 

"why" ≠ "in what context". That said, I grant that he may have wanted to know if the bidder showed extra length (btw, if the correct explanation is "the queen or extra length" then "yes, he showed the queen" is MI).

 

I described how I do it. I didn't say that's the only way. Still, I think you're a little too fussy in the way you do it. Certainly I've never found it hard to ask for further information about individual calls after an explanation of the entire auction (however presented) is completed. :ph34r:

[Trinidad]

Still, I think you're a little too fussy in the way you do it. Certainly I've never found it hard to ask for further information about individual calls after an explanation of the entire auction (however presented) is completed.

I think you are misunderstanding me. My problem is not that the opponents might be unwilling to answer further questions. So it is not because I want to be fussy.

 

My point is that I want to gather information in the way that makes it easiest (and fastest) for me to understand. And the way my brain is wired is such that in many cases it is easiest to understand their bidding if I get a full explanation of each individual bid in the order that they were made. That is why I am sometimes asking in this particular way.

 

If it is easier for your brain to first get a full idea of the auction and then "zoom in" on the details then by all means ask that way. But in some cases the chronological way is better suited for my brain (and that of some others).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I go with the evidence presented. That evidence is that the player asked whether the response to 4NT showed the queen. No evidence was presented that he asked about anything else.

Now I am getting fussy. Please reread the post. You are wrong. That was not the evidence.

 

The evidence was that the player asked for the meaning of a response to the queen ask (i.e. not the meaning of the response to 4NT). From the fact that pigpenz didn't mention anything about other questions you are inferring that there can't have been any. (And you call that "going with the evidence", LOL.)

 

I have never said that there were other questions. I attemted to answer your question:

If the player who asks holds the Queen, why did he ask?

 

I gave you not one, but two possible valid reasons (many more exist) why a player who holds the queen might ask for the meaning of a queen ask response. And you say that one of those reasons (it is one question in a series) is impossible because pigpenz didn't mention that there were additional questions. Did I somewhere state that this particular reason must have been applicable in pigpenz' situation? I don't think so. So don't start arguing that I did. I gave it as one possible reason why one might ask when holding the queen. And it is entirely consistent with the evidence that he presented.

 

And finally, not that this is at all relevant, if you then decide to "go with the evidence", maybe you could think along a little bit and reconsider your inference that there was only a question about the response to the queen asking bid. This is a typical case of "the dog that didn't bark":

 

The opponents are having a slam auction. A player is not interested in the meaning of the early auction, he is not interested in any cuebids that might have been exchanged, he is not interested in the meaning of 4NT, he is not interested in the meaning of the response to 4NT, he is not interested in the meaning of the next bid (which asked for the queen), but then suddenly he comes to life because now he wants to know what the meaning of the response to the queen ask is ("What did 5♥ mean?").

 

I would consider this scenario highly unlikely to begin with.

 

But on top of that you know that it is highly inappropriate in its own right to ask a question about one particular bid in the auction, whether you hold the trump queen or not. And you know that pigpenz knows this too. Now would pigpenz think it worth wondering whether it is appropriate to ask a question about the response to a queen ask when holding the queen yourself when there would have been a blatantly obvious other reason why asking the question was already highly inappropriate no matter who held the queen?

 

If pigpenz didn't bark (sorry pigpenz) about the fact that the player singled out one bid in the auction to ask about, then he probably didn't have a reason to bark. Therefore, we infer that -in all likeliness- this wasn't the only question that was asked. Not that it really matters, though, because I never argued that more questions must have been asked - I merely offered it as a possibility.

 

Rik