Reading your opponent

[pigpenz]

actually I was kibbing at the time, and the only question asked was whether or not the bid showed the Q trump.

The person who asked was a competent player not top notch but still.....after the game I asked Alan Stout, David King,

Jim Fellows, and Jim Nash about the question....they just laughed...was at the bar afterwards....and said what would you expect

from that person.

 

trumps were 2-2 no harm no foul....just a theoretical question

[blackshoe]

Okay, I should have said "the response to the queen ask" rather than "the response to 4NT". Sue me.

 

As for the rest, I stand by what I said.

[Fluffy]

With this hand it would be stupid, but I have overcalled 4♠ with 5♠-6m on the past with similar intent.

 

I did it twice on a short period, it was funny because the second time, with screens, my partner suspected what was going on, I didn't have to remove my double, partner did it before me to 5♣. He said he had seen blood in his RHO's eyes when she doubled 4♠ with KJ98xx. Also funny I had problems deciding wich minor to play because I was almost sure with this little bidding at high level that we had 6-2 fit in both minors, I was right.

[RunemPard]

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???

 

 

Off topic and random...but this made me think about...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkAbAswCYJ4

[gombo121]

RunemPard, thank you for sharing the video. But you can't pull the trick in bridge, can you? It would run afoul 73D2.

That's the thing which bothers me.

 

When I started this topic I was absolutely sure that the answer for my question is "it's against spirit of the game. Almost impossible to nail down, granted, but an ideal ethical player wouldn't do that". So, I was surprised to see that opinion of the comunity is almost unanimously the opposite. That's fine, but then, aren't the rules skewed? One can read opponent, one can even set the opponent up for the purpose, but the opponent is prohibited to couneract in any way, even in a small one like hesitating with three smalls, never mind stunts like in the video.

 

It seems to me that's unfair. It should be either all out psychological warfare or trying to exclude reading the opponents at all. The current state just does not make sense for me.

[blackshoe]

The way to counteract opponents "reading" you is to follow the first sentence of Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner".

[Zelandakh]

The way to counteract opponents "reading" you is to follow the first sentence of Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner".

So your solution to a opponent breaching 74C5 is to breach 74C7 and/or 73D2? Sounds about right...

[Trinidad]

So your solution to a opponent breaching 74C5 is to breach 74C7 and/or 73D2? Sounds about right...

I think you misunderstood. Blackshoe meant (I hope) that if you maintain a steady tempo there is nothing to read.

 

So, as a concrete example, when declarer has ATx in dummy and you sit in front of it with the queen, you should have decided whether to cover a jack with the queen before declarer plays the jack. If you can duck smoothly, he might/will play partner for the queen. If you need to think before you duck, you are a lame duck. ;)

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

It seems I did misunderstand - I saw the "though not always required" subclause and read something into it. On the other hand, tells do not always come in the form of tempo changes, indeed there are many more tells of other types. Ask any poker player.

[iviehoff]

The purpose of having screens was to make sure that players were not reading tells from their partners, who are probably a lot easier to read than opponents. Certain players seemed to be substantially reduced in their abilities following the introduction of screens. However screens, as designed, screens also removed one of the opponents from direct view and I have sometimes wondered whether that was offensive to one's right to use one's opponents' mannerisms. I have also sometimes wondered whether there is systematic advantage in being NS or EW with screens, in terms of observing ones opponents - NS can see a player who immediately follows them, whereas EW can see a player who immediately precedes them, in the order of play.

[Trinidad]

The purpose of having screens was to make sure that players were not reading tells from their partners, who are probably a lot easier to read than opponents. Certain players seemed to be substantially reduced in their abilities following the introduction of screens. However screens, as designed, screens also removed one of the opponents from direct view and I have sometimes wondered whether that was offensive to one's right to use one's opponents' mannerisms. I have also sometimes wondered whether there is systematic advantage in being NS or EW with screens, in terms of observing ones opponents - NS can see a player who immediately follows them, whereas EW can see a player who immediately precedes them, in the order of play.

In Veldhoven 2011 they experimented with screens where you could see both opponents, but not partner. The screen had a glass window that you could see through when looking straight through it to your opponent, but not when you were looking through it under a 45 degree angle towards your partner.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

In Veldhoven 2011 they experimented with screens where you could see both opponents, but not partner. The screen had a glass window that you could see through when looking straight through it to your opponent, but not when you were looking through it under a 45 degree angle towards your partner.

Interesting. Do you know how well it worked?

[Trinidad]

Interesting. Do you know how well it worked?

I think it was used in the transnationals. (I didn't play since I had to work. :( ) They showed one in the lobby. I kind of tested it and it seemed to work fine.

 

Rik

[barmar]

While the laws permit you to take inference from opponents' mannerisms, I don't think it's considered an integral part of the game. Ideally, the game would be just about the cards. However, the lawmakers didn't consider it fair (or practical, I suspect) to prohibit these inferences; only communication between partners raises the spectre of cheating. But if playing conditions get in the way (screens, online bridge), it's not considered a significant change to the game (it's arguably less significant than online bridge preventing irregularities like insufficient bids, plays out of turns, and revokes).

 

Because the game is supposed to be about the bids and cards, not mannerisms, I'm actually on the side of thinking that trying to induce tells is against the spirit of the game. But it's borderline, so I wouldn't think too poorly of a player who tried it.

[blackshoe]

It seems I did misunderstand - I saw the "though not always required" subclause and read something into it. On the other hand, tells do not always come in the form of tempo changes, indeed there are many more tells of other types. Ask any poker player.

Of course. Tempo changes, facial expressions, gasps, changes in posture, and many other things are tells. Reducing or eliminating them falls under "unvarying manner" IMO.

 

I'm not happy about trying to induce tells myself, but the original question, as I read it, was whether it is okay to read tells, and that's a different thing.

[gombo121]

The way to counteract opponents "reading" you is to follow the first sentence of Law 73D1: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner".

 

That's what I call unfair. It is extremely difficult in not superhuman to maintain fast pace at all times, but if anybody tries to put in practice advice like "make 10 seconds pause before any call or play" he would not get popular in his club and even may be penalized for unnecessary slow play.

 

I'm not happy about trying to induce tells myself, but the original question, as I read it, was whether it is okay to read tells, and that's a different thing.

I can't think of a way to actually induce tells at the bridge table without breaking proprieties. So, for me it's "watch" vs. "notice", but I think I get your meaning.

[gombo121]

In Veldhoven 2011 they experimented with screens where you could see both opponents, but not partner. The screen had a glass window that you could see through when looking straight through it to your opponent, but not when you were looking through it under a 45 degree angle towards your partner.

 

Rik

 

Curious. I'd thought that the next logical step for screens would be the one where player could not see anybody - as barmar said, the game is supposed to be about bids and cards.

[Zelandakh]

I can't think of a way to actually induce tells at the bridge table without breaking proprieties. So, for me it's "watch" vs. "notice", but I think I get your meaning.

We had a thread here a year or so ago about a quote from one of Meckwell, where they seemed to be suggesting that declarer should play quickly when they knew a tempo-sensitive situation for the defenders would be coming up (I forget the exact reference, someone will correct me I am sure). That was seen by the majority as within the rules and would be one example. Another possibility is for declarer to simply pause at the critical moment. Some people can tell a great deal just from listening intently in this kind of position, and when you add in micro-gestures and other body language indicators I think a practiced person-reader could get the decision right the vast majority of the time.

[Trinidad]

Because the game is supposed to be about the bids and cards, not mannerisms.

I strongly disagree. The game is about bids and cards and psychology, which among others includes interpreting the mannerisms by the opponents. Interpreting mannerisms by your own side is banned, and so is "acting mannerisms" (both for communication with partner and for misleading opponents). But reading opponents' mannerisms is an integral part of the game, as is inducing an opponent's mannerisms by the play of the cards. Avoiding that you show mannerisms that opponents could read is also part of the game.

 

It is well within the rules and the spirit of the game to lead the jack and observe from the corner of your eyes whether LHO has a problem. (No staring and no looking at his cards!)

 

Psychology and reading your opponent's mind are not exclusive to bridge. It is part of any game. Even chess players will tell you that the psychology of the game, including reading your opponent, is an essential skill and it is important to have a poker face. And it happens to be one of the aspects of playing games that I find highly attractive.

 

It is also the reason why I like playing with screens. Though screens are by no means perfect and quite a bit of information passes through it anyway, they make it a lot easier for me to be sure that the information that I am using comes from my screen mate and not from my partner.

 

Rik

[Mbodell]

We had a thread here a year or so ago about a quote from one of Meckwell, where they seemed to be suggesting that declarer should play quickly when they knew a tempo-sensitive situation for the defenders would be coming up (I forget the exact reference, someone will correct me I am sure). That was seen by the majority as within the rules and would be one example.

 

If I remember correctly, something to that effect is in "The Rodwell files" as the advantage to knowing your techniques and strategies.

[Trinidad]

Just to clarify:

 

I will use all the vibes that the opponents are radiating. And I will try to induce vibes by the cards I play.

 

But if my opponent accidentally drops a card, I will look the other way. If I happen to see it anyway, I will usually ignore the information (though law 74C5 specifically allows me to use it). Why? Because I get no satisfaction out of winning like that.

 

But it does give me satisfaction when I drop a singleton king based on table feel, like my partner did two months ago ("She was soooo going to win the trick that I decided that finessing just didn't make sense.").

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I can't think of a way to actually induce tells at the bridge table without breaking proprieties.

 

You have in dummy:

 

Axxx

 

and in hand:

 

KJTx

 

You are in your hand and have decided that the suit splits 2 on your left and 3 on your right. Therefore, the probability that RHO has the queen is 60%. So you plan to play to the ace and finesse on the way back.

 

But nothing stops you from leading the jack. For one, LHO might decide to cover and solve your problem. But the other reason is to see if you pick up a tell from LHO (should I cover?) or RHO (anticipating to win). Some opponents maintain a poker face and follow smoothly. Then go up with the ace and finesse on the way back. It will work 60% of the time.

 

Others will give the show away, making the location of the queen a near certainty. It would be nonsense to say that playing the ace is a 60% play if your opponents have told you that LHO has the queen doubleton.

 

There are also some famous examples of top players who -against unknown opponents- start by taking a fake finesse (e.g. playing towards the AQ in dummy, playing the queen, while they hold the king themselves) just to note how the opponents are reacting. They then used that information on a decision later in te play.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

It is really annoying when you try this move and the suit splits 4-1 onside.

[gombo121]

It is well within the rules and the spirit of the game to lead the jack and observe from the corner of your eyes whether LHO has a problem. (No staring and no looking at his cards!)

Sorry, no personal offense, but the last part bugs me as plain stupid. Either it's OK an you can look directly (though you may not want to), or you are not looking at all.

 

I know it is in the Law and I thought I knew why it's there (because it is impossible to enforce 'no peeking' rule), but this thread tells me that I was wrong and that a lot of people think it is a fine arrangement like that.

I don't get it.

[gwnn]

There are also some famous examples of top players who -against unknown opponents- start by taking a fake finesse (e.g. playing towards the AQ in dummy, playing the queen, while they hold the king themselves) just to note how the opponents are reacting. They then used that information on a decision later in te play.

 

 

Cool thread by a top player on this:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/21884-an-easy-play-problem-with-a-twist/