The little things that they do

[Vampyr]

I hate it when opponents do something that is clearly wrong, but you hate to make a big deal of it by calling the director. Examples:

 

Recently I was playing a match and my RHO opponent had his scorecard, on which he was recording the opening leads, open right in front of him. I asked him if he could fold it if he was going to write down the leads. The next hand he turned the card over after recording the lead, but he did not do so for any of the rest of the half-match that he played against me. I felt that calling the director would be making too much of the matter, but I played ten boards very unhappy.

 

Last night in a duplicate I faced one of those people who think they are clever by attempting to anticipate what declarer is going to play next and detaching their card in advance. Perhaps the UI involved is subtle, but it definitely exists, especially when declarer does something different and the card has to be restored to the hand.

 

I am wondering what other little things people put up with, normally without calling the director?

[WellSpyder]

A little like your second example, I have come across people who will detach a discard from their hand when you are running a long suit before the second and third hands have played to the trick, thereby telling everyone that their discard does not depend on the cards they are about to see. Here, I think the UI is potentially quite strong, though I guess there won't be many cases where it actually matters. I have certainly asked oppo not to do this, and I think I may once even have called the TD when they persisted, so I guess it doesn't quite match the question you asked....

[Zelandakh]

At our club, one of the best pairs will answer "Normal" or "Standard" to any query about one of their bids. The problem being that not once has their normal been what I would have expected. Another woman has the habit of bringing a card v - e - r - y s - l - o - w - l - y out of her hand and resting it on the table in front of her, pausing and finally bringing it down to the played position, also incredibly slowly. Then there are those who mix their cards up quickly when you notice that they revoked thinking they can destroy the evidence. But much worse are those who provide answers in such a condascending tone as to actively try to stop any further questions from coming their way and to put down their opponents. When they do this to my partner it makes me very angry. Actually, I should extend this category to all those who are deliberately unfriendly to try to gain an advantage.

 

But the worst of all are really those who play most of their cards normally but when they want to give a "very important" signal will play the card halfway across the table making "this is important" eye contact with their partner. Strangely you see this kind of thing more in League bridge (supposedly serious) than at the club. Perhaps it is the lack of an on-site TD.

 

Actually that is not quite true. The worst are actually the TDs that give bad rulings to appease the regulars.

[aguahombre]

"Play the...", "Play a..", "Play".

 

"I'll have the...."

 

By Declarer, throughout the entire 13 tricks.

 

Edit: I actually don't mind it the first time I face an unknown opponent, because it is a solid clue about their level. After that, it gets old.

Edited April 24, 2013 by aguahombre

[nige1]

Another annoyance is the declarer who claims, waves his open hand about for a second, then attempts to return it to the board (worse if he shuffles it first). When you politely ask to see his hand, he refuses (why he should be allowed to refuse escapes me).

 

A recent example that did end in a director call: Defenders explained to the director that they couldn't agree to the claim without seeing declarer's hand. Declarer asked why the defenders were incapable of counting the hand. Dummy accused the defenders of time-wasting. The director acceded to the defenders' request but declarer still insisted on waving his hand about, instead of placing it face up on the table.

[Vampyr]

"Play the...", "Play a..", "Play".

 

"I'll have the...."

 

By Declarer, throughout the entire 13 tricks.

 

Edit: I actually don't mind it the first time I face an unknown opponent, because it is a solid clue about their level. After that, it gets old.

 

This is a little different to my examples, because there is no "bridge" effect. But if we want to talk about annoying things, I can't stand it when people a) snap their cards; b) hold their card vertically with one finger and then let it drop to the table.

 

I don't think that these are as bad as declarer saying just "play" when calling a card from dummy.

[Vampyr]

I have certainly asked oppo not to do this, and I think I may once even have called the TD when they persisted, so I guess it doesn't quite match the question you asked....

 

No, I didn't ask it well; I am interested in this sort of thing resulting in director calls too.

[MickyB]

EBU convention cards have the standard card underlined and, if playing non-standard leads, you are to mark any cards that do not coincide with standard methods. Some who print their own cards decide to move the underline to the card they lead, which I find requires much more time and effort to work out what their methods are. I saw a new variant on this recently when I played against a pair who had moved the underline to the card that they lead, while circling the standard card!

[MickyB]

I don't think that these are as bad as declarer saying just "play" when calling a card from dummy.

 

I do this a lot, never heard any objection before. Do you object to the use of "small"? Aren't the two synonymous in this context?

[iviehoff]

A recent example that did end in a director call: Defenders explained to the director that they couldn't agree to the claim without seeing declarer's hand. Declarer asked why the defenders were incapable of counting the hand. Dummy accused the defenders of time-wasting. The director acceded to the defenders' request but declarer still insisted on waving his hand about, instead of placing it face up on the table.

Once it has got to this point, the defenders have in effect declined to accede to the claim, and the director should adjudicate it. Realising the consequences of having claims adjudicated, especially if as seems likely there was a rather abbreviated claim statment, I think this would soon put a stop to such arrogant behaviour by the claimers.

[aguahombre]

I do this a lot, never heard any objection before. Do you object to the use of "small"? Aren't the two synonymous in this context?

Synonymous until the opponent ---mesmerized by "play" used over and over again -- doesn't notice that you slowly added "the Ace"; and/or dummy being equally mesmerized pulls a low card which you didn't intend.

 

There might be a good reason why "play" is not one of the words mentioned when the rules address informal designations of cards by declarer.

[barmar]

I do this a lot, never heard any objection before. Do you object to the use of "small"? Aren't the two synonymous in this context?

Didn't we have a long thread a few months ago specifically about the legality of "play"? It's not one of the incomplete designations whose meaning is specified in 46B. The question is whether it should be considered equivalent to "small" or "play anything".

[WellSpyder]

EBU convention cards have the standard card underlined and, if playing non-standard leads, you are to mark any cards that do not coincide with standard methods. Some who print their own cards decide to move the underline to the card they lead, which I find requires much more time and effort to work out what their methods are. I saw a new variant on this recently when I played against a pair who had moved the underline to the card that they lead, while circling the standard card!

Thanks for the warning! I'd better look carefully in future....

[Vampyr]

I do this a lot, never heard any objection before. Do you object to the use of "small"? Aren't the two synonymous in this context?

 

I object just because I find it annoying. It is weird, too -- of course dummy is going to "play"; the question is "what?". "Small" adequately answers this question.

 

I once played a session with an American friend who had this mannerism. Every time he said "play" I asked "which one?". He soon stopped doing it. If he hadn't, it would have driven me spare.

[broze]

Some who print their own cards decide to move the underline to the card they lead, which I find requires much more time and effort to work out what their methods are.

 

How can having just one card underlined/circled possibly be more confusing than having one card circled and one underlined and trying to work out which it the lead the opponents actually use? Perhaps I've misunderstood.

[barmar]

How can having just one card underlined/circled possibly be more confusing than having one card circled and one underlined and trying to work out which it the lead the opponents actually use? Perhaps I've misunderstood.

If you glance at the card and just see lots of underlines, you can easily assume that all their leads are standard. You'd have to look more carefully to notice that the underlines are under the "wrong" cards.

[broze]

If you glance at the card and just see lots of underlines, you can easily assume that all their leads are standard. You'd have to look more carefully to notice that the underlines are under the "wrong" cards.

 

Ok - I kind of see. In any case the EBU card has a solution! Above the leads section is a box which you colour in if using non-standard leads. Hence no room for misunderstanding or false assumption.

[barmar]

Ok - I kind of see. In any case the EBU card has a solution! Above the leads section is a box which you colour in if using non-standard leads. Hence no room for misunderstanding or false assumption.

You still have to hunt for the ones that are different, and could easily miss one. Using a different way of highlighting your non-standard leads avoids this difficulty. This is the information the opponents most need, it should stand out.

[MickyB]

You still have to hunt for the ones that are different, and could easily miss one. Using a different way of highlighting your non-standard leads avoids this difficulty. This is the information the opponents most need, it should stand out.

 

Yes, this. Say oppo are playing standard leads, except they don't treat the ten as an honour. If they've circled the 2nd highest card in each Txx(x)(x) combination, it takes about one second to understand their methods. If they've moved the underlines, I need to check every combination listed to see if the card marked is different from standard.

[MickyB]

Didn't we have a long thread a few months ago specifically about the legality of "play"? It's not one of the incomplete designations whose meaning is specified in 46B. The question is whether it should be considered equivalent to "small" or "play anything".

 

Ok, fair enough, I missed that thread. I was under the impression that it was clearly equivalent to "small" and would've guessed it was mentioned in the laws as such.

[broze]

Yes, this. Say oppo are playing standard leads, except they don't treat the ten as an honour. If they've circled the 2nd highest card in each Txx(x)(x) combination, it takes about one second to understand their methods. If they've moved the underlines, I need to check every combination listed to see if the card marked is different from standard.

 

Yeah - I see what you mean. I had got rid of the underlines altogether and just circled the leads we use but I can see how they might be helpful if you are familiar with the EBU card. Perhaps an improvement would be to use a format like the WBF CC in which you record what holdings you lead certain cards from, rather than the other way around.

 

To return to the OP; in terms of club bridge it greatly annoys me when the opponents' procedural misdemeanours that I cba to call the director over are never corrected, not even when the perpetrators are sitting at the director's table!

 

One amusing example I've seen is the opening leader looking at her hand, asking parter "Any questions?" and then selecting a lead, placing it face down, and then turning it over. Here a facepalm is perhaps more appropriate than a director call.

[mycroft]

I'm wonderfully passive-aggressive when I need to be (and somewhat less wonderfully when I shouldn't - I'm working on that).

 

The first case, I would simply remind the player every time that he should close his scorecard, until he started doing it by default. Were I also a TD, I'd also check (when I'm TDing, not when I'm playing) frequently that he is doing that by default at other tables besides mine (of course, as a TD, I'm allowed to give my "requests" teeth I can't as a player). Going back to "at the table", were he to object to doing this, I would call the TD. Every time he objected. Let the TD explain that "we're not accusing you of using your scorecard as an aid to play, but since someone wanting that aid would do what you're doing, you can't do it either."

 

Eventually it becomes less annoying to follow the Law than it is to be lazy (assuming that's what it is; if it turns out that he *was* using it as an aid to play...)

 

The "little thing that they do" that gets me is when dummy comes down (or at end of hand, if they're defending), she tells partner "You know that that auction means X" - as opposed to, you know, telling *us* about the MI?

[iviehoff]

What I hate is when a player puts out dummy so that the visible pips are at the bottom of the card and upside down from declarer's point of view. When I ask them to rectify it, as I always do, since what they have done is not the legal way of displaying dummy, and it distracts me, first they usually pretend they don't know what I'm talking about. But I don't believe they can be unaware that what they have done is different from common practice - these are usually players who have been playing for many years. Their first attempt to rectify is usually by put by unfanning the cards in each suit into a little packet and smearing it in the opposite direction, only to discover this doesn't work either. I'm sure they must know enough about handling cards after all these years to know this wasn't going to work, and it was just a ruse to pretend they can't work out how it can possibly be achieved. Or if they do own up to realising that they do know you have to reverse the order of the cards in each suit, they'll claim it is far too much work. Has no one ever asked them to put it right before, or is this just a game of cussedness that they enjoy playing?

[blackshoe]

The first time I heard a declarer say "play", I thought he meant "play anything", so I designated a card from dummy. You can imagine what happened next.

 

I designate cards from dummy in the manner specified by Law 46A. I find that eventually my partners start doing the same thing. Opponents, however, do not. :blink:

[barmar]

What I hate is when a player puts out dummy so that the visible pips are at the bottom of the card and upside down from declarer's point of view. When I ask them to rectify it, as I always do, since what they have done is not the legal way of displaying dummy, and it distracts me, first they usually pretend they don't know what I'm talking about. But I don't believe they can be unaware that what they have done is different from common practice - these are usually players who have been playing for many years. Their first attempt to rectify is usually by put by unfanning the cards in each suit into a little packet and smearing it in the opposite direction, only to discover this doesn't work either. I'm sure they must know enough about handling cards after all these years to know this wasn't going to work, and it was just a ruse to pretend they can't work out how it can possibly be achieved. Or if they do own up to realising that they do know you have to reverse the order of the cards in each suit, they'll claim it is far too much work. Has no one ever asked them to put it right before, or is this just a game of cussedness that they enjoy playing?

I think this comes from sorting their hands in the opposite order than most (I hope you agree that this is their right -- nothing dicates the order of cards in an unexposed hand), so the natural way to lay them down results in this. Other players who sort their hands this way, but want to lay them down properly, do a different annoying thing: "dealing" the cards to dummy one card at a time.