signaling by opponents

[Shugart23]

My wife asked me to post this question.

 

At club games where she is declarer, LHO opponent fails to follow suit and makes a discard. A few cards later, wife may decide to ask the RHO what their first discard means. Answer is given : standard; odd-even; whatever.

 

What is happening more frequently than might be expected, is that while the opponents may actually have a signalling partnership agreement, they aren't using it (because they are B and C players, not because they are clever)

 

I have suggested to my wife that when she asks RHO question she phrase her question in a different way. eg " What did your partners first discard of the club suit tell you " ? If RHO tells her what it means, she can have some confidence that the partnership is using signals (she still has to judge if the signal was truthful). IF RHO, say something like "What Club ?", then she'll know to not put too much stock in the discard.

 

Any comment/ words of wisdom I can pass along to her ?

[Antrax]

If your wife asks me what my partner's discard tells me, I'll tell her it depends on what she's holding and ask to see her hand.

I'd be happy to explain our signalling agreements at length if needed, but what conclusions I derive from them is my business, as is the question of whether or not I paid attention to which cards he'd played.

[ggwhiz]

There really isn't any answer to players that say they play whatever but don't know how.

 

I would suggest asking what their signals and discards are before the round starts and making a mental note on the players that can't be trusted. In time she will have clues as to who they are and can smoke them out by watching the play as dummy as well as declarer.

[Shugart23]

sure, and by virtue of your response, my wife would know in a heartbeat that you and your partner know what you are doing, and then can make whatever 'proper' inference she wants to make on your partner's discard from a few rounds ago.

[barmar]

I have suggested to my wife that when she asks RHO question she phrase her question in a different way. eg " What did your partners first discard of the club suit tell you " ? If RHO tells her what it means, she can have some confidence that the partnership is using signals (she still has to judge if the signal was truthful). IF RHO, say something like "What Club ?", then she'll know to not put too much stock in the discard.

I don't think that's an appropriate way to ask the question. You're entitled to know the opponents' agreements, it's your job to remember the cards and try to figure out what they mean in that system.

 

And I'm also not sure that your conclusion is even right. Maybe LHO discarded properly according to their system, in the hope that RHO would be paying attention, but he wasn't. This is likely in partnerships where one player is more experienced than the other. For instance, in a mentor-mentee partnership, the teacher will probably signal truthfully, so that when they discuss the hands he can point out how they could have defended better of the student followed the signals.

[wyman]

The short answer is to play in better fields.

 

What you're really asking is how to play against average club players, and my answer to that is to just ignore their signals and take the percentage line and collect your avg+. Even if they are transmitting information that you're not getting, it's not like most of them are able to use it much to their advantage. If you want the advanced course on club player discarding, their discards are a mixture between:

 

* really high and slow and emphatic when they have an ace or king in position

* smallest card in a suit they don't care about. If they have a 5 card suit, they almost always discard from that one.

 

They never give count when discarding and rarely do otherwise unless it's a doubleton.

 

GL.

[mycroft]

"We play odd-even on the first discard. So, on the first discard, if he played an odd card, it would be positive for that suit; if he played an even card, it would be suit preference based on the size of that even card for the other two suits. Partner is allowed to lie."

 

Of course, that's why I *don't* play odd-even :-).

 

Further questions of the "so what does that card mean" get "depends on what else he has in his hand" answers.

 

Please note: I know my signalling systems. That doesn't mean I do it, or pay attention when partner does. Yes, that's a problem, but it's an exploitable problem.

 

I think my favourite answer to that question, however, was the day in the Flight A Swiss where (for reasons too complicated to point out), I was playing with someone with 3.5 MPs (1.3 of which she'd got in the 299er game the day before). Very innocently, I replied "what's a signal?" Complete, correct, and understood by declarer.

[Zelandakh]

What is happening more frequently than might be expected, is that while the opponents may actually have a signalling partnership agreement, they aren't using it (because they are B and C players, not because they are clever)

You are entitled to know the opps' agreements and that is it. If the signals are unreliable because of constantly forgetting or not paying attention that is also part of those agreements. That said, she will do much better simply to note which players are forgetting. My experience is that you can usually tell when that sort of player is making an important signal. While it might be frustrating to have less to go on against such a weaker pair, in the long run she will gain much more than she loses. A good strategy against them is to put them to decisions (discards or leads) before you have shown much of your hand. Without defensive signals to guide them you tend to pick up a lot of free tricks this way, often doing better than a technically better line that gives the defence fewer chances to go wrong.

[Shugart23]

I don't think that's an appropriate way to ask the question. You're entitled to know the opponents' agreements,

 

I agree the question is trying to (perhaps) obtain information that declarer may not be entitled to....But is the declarer prohibited from asking ? (Declarer is entitled to take advantage of opponent's hesitations and pauses which takes advantage of information he is not entitled to, so why not a question designed to find out if they actively are signaling to one another ?)

[Shugart23]

The short answer is to play in better fields.

 

What you're really asking is how to play against average club players, and my answer to that is to just ignore their signals and take the percentage line and collect your avg+. Even if they are transmitting information that you're not getting, it's not like most of them are able to use it much to their advantage. If you want the advanced course on club player discarding, their discards are a mixture between:

 

* really high and slow and emphatic when they have an ace or king in position

* smallest card in a suit they don't care about. If they have a 5 card suit, they almost always discard from that one.

 

They never give count when discarding and rarely do otherwise unless it's a doubleton.

 

GL.

 

 

Might be the best answer yet...A variant is they hold it high in the air before palcing it down to indicate it was a singleton

[TylerE]

My favorite: Place card on table and leave your finger on it, maybe even wiggle it a bit, to signal that you are signaling.

[Zelandakh]

so why not a question designed to find out if they actively are signaling to one another ?

For the same reason that you are not allowed to ask a defender if they hold the queen in a two-way finesse position. If she wants to read tells from the opponents with inappropriate table talk then she would be better off with poker.

 

 

My favorite: Place card on table and leave your finger on it, maybe even wiggle it a bit, to signal that you are signaling.

My favourite was a league match where an opponent played their cards by holding them down in front of them. Then, one particular card was held halfway across the table in the air while bending down and looking meaningfully into partner's eyes. Sure enough, she had the ♥AQ sitting over dummy's ♥KJ and her partner somehow found the heart switch. I was naive enough back then not to call them on it.

[wyman]

In fairness to the inexperienced players, and I know we enjoy poking a little fun at their tendencies (many of which are exaggerated and seem unethical to the advanced player), I would bet (as someone who basically does machine learning for a living) that it would not be that hard to figure out from tempo and or demeanor when an expert holds a singleton. And I always wonder, even though it's futile, what partnerships subconsciously learn about each other and their tendencies, even in an environment where everyone is trying to be as ethical as possible. Unfortunately, I think this is an incredibly difficult problem to address.

[mycroft]

Well, there's a reason for screens...

 

But yes, the classic "this is a signal, partner" signal is to play a card and then stare at partner to make sure she noticed. This also works for Alertable bids partner may have forgotten about.

 

The alternative meaning for this is "play a card, stare at partner, look for approval that that was the right card."

[ArtK78]

I would bet (as someone who basically does machine learning for a living) that it would not be that hard to figure out from tempo and or demeanor when an expert holds a singleton.

 

And I always wonder, even though it's futile, what partnerships subconsciously learn about each other and their tendencies, even in an environment where everyone is trying to be as ethical as possible.

I disagree with your first statement quoted here. Most experts are very ethical, and make every attempt to play EVERY card in the same manner and at the same pace, whether the play requires some thought or absolutely no thought. I know that I make that attempt. Whether I succeed all the time is for others to judge.

 

I agree with your second statement, especially the first part. As for the ethical component, many long-term partnerships below the expert level don't even realize that there is an ethical aspect to this game, so the manner in which they play their cards is often highly revealing - especially to each other.

[wyman]

I disagree with your first statement quoted here. Most experts are very ethical, and make every attempt to play EVERY card in the same manner and at the same pace, whether the play requires some thought or absolutely no thought. I know that I make that attempt. Whether I succeed all the time is for others to judge.

 

So long as you understand that I was claiming that I bet that there is information latent in their tempo and mannerisms DESPITE their efforts to be ethical. And I'm not claiming that (necessarily) the partner extracts any of this information, and certainly not consciously. I'm just claiming that with enough data and technology, I bet we could find some signal in the noise.

 

By and large, the better the bridge player I've encountered, the more ethical they are, with a few notable exceptions obviously.

[blackshoe]

By and large, the better the bridge player I've encountered, the more ethical they are, with a few notable exceptions obviously.

IME, beginners are rarely taught the ethics of the game. Certainly not in their formal classes. They learn the rudiments of bidding and play in about eight weeks, and are then tossed into the pool. Some end up in the deep end (the "A" section) some in the shallow end. Then they're expected to figure it all out on their own. Eventually they (most of them) begin to understand that there are ethical considerations (tempo, comments, questions, mannerisms, etcetera) and soon after that, one hopes, they begin to try to minimize their transgressions. But it's hard, because they've already acquired bad habits, and because they still have a lot of other things to think about. I dunno, maybe it would be better to emphasize ethical behavior explicitly in classes and at the table from day one. But would students and novice players accept that? :unsure: :blink:

[CamHenry]

By and large, the better the bridge player I've encountered, the more ethical they are, with a few notable exceptions obviously.

 

I agree - the unethical players are usually the middling-to-poor bracket (truly poor players don't know what extraneous information to convey; better players would usually rather win fairly). There was an old lady I encountered who would, as declarer's RHO, say very intently "you will remember I've bid hearts, won't you partner?" while LHO was selecting a lead. She used to donate enough MPs anyway that no-one really complained.

[Shugart23]

For the same reason that you are not allowed to ask a defender if they hold the queen in a two-way finesse position.

 

Is there really a rule that says I can't ask ?

 

 

My favourite was a league match where an opponent played their cards by holding them down in front of them. Then, one particular card was held halfway across the table in the air while bending down and looking meaningfully into partner's eyes. Sure enough, she had the ♥AQ sitting over dummy's ♥KJ and her partner somehow found the heart switch. I was naive enough back then not to call them on it.

 

 

I play against this lady oftern

[kenberg]

A long time back a learning bridge player was asking about deciphering signals. I "explained" that a card played quickly shows attitude, if it is played slowly it is suit preference. I was of course reprimanded by another player for saying such a thing even if I was, I hope, clearly joking.

 

Anyway, as to the original question. I would definitely not encourage getting cute with the questions. "What did the club play tell you?" is not a proper form for the question and, whatever other players at the club might or might not be doing, we should set standards for ourselves and stick to them.

 

Everyone makes bad plays. This is sometimes through carelessness, sometimes through lack of knowledge, sometimes the game is just too tough. Sometimes a really dumb play turns out just fine. I live with this, whether I am the beneficiary or the victim. Evaluating the reliability of inferences from an opponent's play is part of the game. Yes, I know that they are not to pseudo-hitch when there is nothing to hitch about, and violations should be dealt with by the club director in a polite but firm way. I am referring to the abundance of errors that occur with no evil intent on anyone's part. Judge them as best you can, go on to the next hand.

[wyman]

A long time back a learning bridge player was asking about deciphering signals. I "explained" that a card played quickly shows attitude, if it is played slowly it is suit preference. I was of course reprimanded by another player for saying such a thing even if I was, I hope, clearly joking.

 

Haha. This happens to cherdano all the time on the forums. And it's hilarious every time.

[ArtK78]

I always thought that singletons were led with the left hand. :)

[barmar]

I agree the question is trying to (perhaps) obtain information that declarer may not be entitled to....But is the declarer prohibited from asking ? (Declarer is entitled to take advantage of opponent's hesitations and pauses which takes advantage of information he is not entitled to, so why not a question designed to find out if they actively are signaling to one another ?)

I guess there's no Law against it, but regulations often specify the proper form to ask for information. For instance, the ACBL Alert Procedures says:

The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

Of course, that specific prescription is obviously oriented towards asking for an explanation of an alerted bid -- you couldn't use those exact words to ask about defensive carding. But the spirit is clear: you should ask for a general explanation, not leading questions. And under UNUSUAL CARDING AGREEMENTS it says:

DECLARER IS EXPECTED TO EXAMINE AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTION CARD WITHOUT PROMPTING IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THEIR DEFENSIVE METHODS.

Again, this indicates that you're entitles to their agreements, not an explanation of a specific card.

 

I'm not sure if there's anything prohibiting you from trying to induce an opponent to over-explain. But it doesn't seem like a satisfying way to try to get an advantage. Bid and play your cards better.

[Shugart23]

Anyway, as to the original question. I would definitely not encourage getting cute with the questions. "What did the club play tell you?" is not a proper form for the question and, whatever other players at the club might or might not be doing, we should set standards for ourselves and stick to them.

 

 

I absolutely agree with comments about ethics and setting standards, but in the interest of full disclosure, if the opposing partnership card indicates a certain signaling system and the pair habitually does not employ that system, then I would argue that I am very much entitled to know that information, by ACBL Rule

 

However,having said that, I am going to suggest to my wife that she not go about asking the question ""What did the club play tell you?" and just deal with it.

 

As an aside and as a technical matter, I just did a cursory review of the ACBL rules, and I'm not seeing anywhere where it says it is in fact a violation of rules to ask that question. (Maybe it is there and I just didnt see it)

 

Similarly, although it would be really extreme, asking my RHO " Do you have the King of Spades "? doesnt necessarily seem to be a technical violation of the ACBL rules...or atleast I didnt see any explicit prohibition against it. (Of course the answer you might get is worth exactly what you paid for it)

 

The rules seem to deal with communication between partnerships and avoiding UI between partners. Not seeing hardly anything on communication between declarer and opponents

[barmar]

I absolutely agree with comments about ethics and setting standards, but in the interest of full disclosure, if the opposing partnership card indicates a certain signaling system and the pair habitually does not employ that system, then I would argue that I am very much entitled to know that information, by ACBL Rule

I suppose you could ask something like "Do you generally use defensive signals?"

 

I'm nore sure where it's written, but I'm pretty sure ACBL has ruled that you're not allowed to claim that you don't have any defensive signalling system, e.g. that you discard randomly. Yet it's patently obvious that novices often don't signal, because they simply don't know how.

Similarly, although it would be really extreme, asking my RHO " Do you have the King of Spades "? doesnt necessarily seem to be a technical violation of the ACBL rules...or atleast I didnt see any explicit prohibition against it. (Of course the answer you might get is worth exactly what you paid for it)

 

The rules seem to deal with communication between partnerships and avoiding UI between partners. Not seeing hardly anything on communication between declarer and opponents

I suspect they considered it not necessary to prohibit these questions. An opponent is not expected to answer questions like this if it's to his detriment.

 

OTOH, I've seen experts ask about the location of a card they're about to finesse for in order to speed up claims. Declarer: "Who has the king?" West: "I do." Declarer: "Then I make an overtrick." This usually happens online, because the software doesn't allow conditional claims -- at a f2f table it would probably go "If West has the king I make an overtrick, otherwise I just make."