Reading your opponent

[Fluffy]

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

I played transnationals there and I saw no glass screens anywhere. Unless they were on vugraph tables (wich I doubt) they weren't on the transnational.

[JLOGIC]

Straight outta Terrence Reese's playbook

[blackshoe]

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.

The law does not say "fast" it says "steady". It takes about two seconds to reach for the bidding box, pull out a bunch of cards, and put them on the table. If you allow yourself two or three seconds to think before you do that, your goal might be to set a steady tempo of 4 or 5 seconds on every call (except those made after RHO puts out a stop card). Ten seconds for every call is too long - and then what do you do when the stop card is put out?

 

There are a lot of players who reach for the bidding box before they've really decided what to bid, and sometimes even before their RHO's call is on the table. So any time they don't do that they're giving UI to their partner. Generally, neither of them realizes it, and when partner uses the UI, he rarely realizes he's doing that either. Sadly, directors don't get called in these situations, because the opponents also don't notice it. Also, playing more quickly than your normal tempo can also convey UI, but almost nobody thinks about that. :(

[barmar]

I strongly disagree. The game is about bids and cards and psychology, which among others includes interpreting the mannerisms by the opponents.

While there's certainly psychology involved, I prefer to think of it as trying to figure out why someone did what they did: are they giving an honest signal, what does that lead suggest about their hand, what can I infer about their hand from the choice of bidding sequence, etc.?

 

As I said, we don't consider online bridge to be a different game, even though it eliminates most tells (you can still notice tempo breaks, but it's hard to tell whether it was due to thinking or some distraction). How important can interpreting mannerisms be if we can play just fine without them? Well, I suppose you can say that it's not as much fun; that's true, but it's also not as much fun (IMHO) simply because it lacks the same social aspect. That doesn't mean that socializing is part of the game, it's just a part of life that the game fits into.

[blackshoe]

Barry, if you notice an opponent's tell, do you attempt to disregard it? As difficult as that would be, it seems to fit in with a philosophy that suggests that noticing tells is "not in the spirit of the game".

[barmar]

I thought I made it clear earlier that I felt that noticing is OK, but it's not a critical part of the game, and trying to induce is against the spirit.

[gombo121]

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).

I remember the thread and I own "The Rodwell files". I had to recheck that but Rodwell seeks to induce an error, not a mannerism, from the opponent. Yes, it is somewhat similar but not exactly the same problem.

[barmar]

I remember the thread and I own "The Rodwell files". I had to recheck that but Rodwell seeks to induce an error, not a mannerism, from the opponent. Yes, it is somewhat similar but not exactly the same problem.

Maybe it's two sides of the same coin. I think the "error" he's trying to induce is one that would occur due to the player trying to avoid a tempo-based tell. In order to follow in tempo at the critical point, you need to plan ahead. If the play leading up to that point goes quickly, it's harder to plan because you're busy playing.

 

Contrast this with a strategy of playing the critical suit early, so that the opponents will have less opportunity to signal each other or make other inferences about the hand. This feels more like bridge than poker.

[Cascade]

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.

 

I am completely unconvinced that this is legal.

 

"looking intently at any other player during the auction and play" is a violation of procedure. Doing anything with the intention of inducing a tell whilst looking for the tell in my mind is 'looking intently' even if it is a sly look out of the corner of your eye.

[JLOGIC]

Youre not looking whether they look nervous or something lol, you're looking to see whether they give the fake 2 second hitch which 90 % of people do when you lead an honor through them like youre taking a finesse and they don't have it. Basically you learn whether they are shady with their tempo or not and use that later. If they later play completely smoothly after fake hesitating without an honor, you know that they have the honor.

 

People just don't like to say it that bluntly since it is bad to admit that most players especially the little old lady types that have played for 25 years at the club are effectively cheating in some way.

 

If you deviate your tempo in certain situations then I am going to try and discovery play early on and learn when and with what hand types and try to use that against you. If you don't like it, then don't change your tempo based on whether you want me to think you have an honor or not lol. And you don't need to look at someones face to do this, you can do this online, I do not buy the whole "you cannot read peoples tempos online because maybe they're just distracted." People still give tempo tells all the time online, like if you lead a queen through them and they don't have the king and they take longer to duck than when they do have the king.

[gombo121]

If you don't like it, then don't change your tempo based on whether you want me to think you have an honor or not lol.

 

But how would you know that I don't (well, I'm not LOL, but anyway)? Probably you'll still try your little trick on me and then I'd better try to trick you back, don't you think? ;) In all seriousness I'm sure that your 90% estimate is way off the mark.

 

BTW, the famous example of this technique was back from 50s, I think, and ethics of the game was a bit different. I doubt that 73D was in the book at the time.

[gombo121]

The law does not say "fast" it says "steady". It takes about two seconds to reach for the bidding box, pull out a bunch of cards, and put them on the table. If you allow yourself two or three seconds to think before you do that, your goal might be to set a steady tempo of 4 or 5 seconds on every call (except those made after RHO puts out a stop card). Ten seconds for every call is too long - and then what do you do when the stop card is put out?

 

I believe, your timing is incorrect. I expect it to take under a second for most players to put a pass on the table in "no problem" situation (probably, excluding old persons), on the other hand, two or three second is not nearly enough to think if you actualy have a decision to make. Two or three seconds is fine when bidding goes along a well-beaten path. (May be you noticed that BIT appeals started to discuss 7-10 secons BITs - that's because normal tempo is much faster.)

 

My point is it is possible to slow your play down to 5s per action and that probably won't make you look like a jerk in the eyes of your fellow players, but it won't save you from BIT in difficult situation either.

[blackshoe]

Not gonna argue about how many seconds a call takes. What I stated is my experience. Yours may differ. Tell you what: collect some data, and then get back to us.

[Trinidad]

I am completely unconvinced that this is legal.

 

"looking intently at any other player during the auction and play" is a violation of procedure. Doing anything with the intention of inducing a tell whilst looking for the tell in my mind is 'looking intently' even if it is a sly look out of the corner of your eye.

There is a difference between "intently" and "intentionally".

 

"Looking intently at somebody" does not mean "looking at somebody" or "looking at somebody on purpose". It roughly means "staring at somebody".

 

Bridge tables usually are square. This means that the angle LHO-YOU-RHO is 90 degrees. This means that if you look straight ahead, both opponents are clearly in your field of view. The same is true if you look somewhat more down (so that you are not staring your partner in the face). You don't need to look intently to any of the players to pick up whether a player hesitates, whether he has a problem or is relaxed or whether he is interested in the play or not.

 

Rik