Ethical?

[blackshoe]

"Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty.

[barmar]

Psychologists frequrently refer to inferring what others are thinking as mind-reading.

 

Or think of it as a metaphor, since literal mind-reading is clearly impossible. Kind of like the title of Lawrence's book "How to read your opponent's cards".

[Trinidad]

"Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" is similar to "Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of encouraging an opponent to lead out of turn".

I agree that there is enough similarity.

 

However, the second part is not a representation what is happening here. The opponent is not at all encouraged to lead out of turn. He is merely allowed to do what he already decided to do himself.

 

So the real question should be: Is "Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" similar to "Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of allowing the opponent to commit an irregularity on his own initiative"? I obviously think it isn't, since for me the key question is whether declarer is doing something with the defender's mind (disconcerting him, making him think that it is his lead, etc.). But declarer doesn't do anything with defender's mind. The defender is doing it all by himself. The only thing is that declarer doesn't prevent the defender from doing what he wanted.

 

Furthermore, actively encouraging an opponent to lead out of turn, is properly dealt with within the laws (47E1). This is different from allowing an opponent to lead out of turn.

 

I think that if the lawmakers really would have wanted to ban "allowing an opponent to lead out of turn when you could prevent it" they would have worded 47E1 differently.

 

So, just to be clear about this, if declarer would wait for a long time (until RHO says: "Oh is it my lead?" and leads) or if declarer looks at RHO with a face saying "are you going to lead or what?" then that is not allowed (47E1 and Law 74C7). But merely allowing an opponent to do what he himself has decided to do (in this case leading out of turn), is not something that is forbidden in the Laws.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

On the subject of mind reading: I am clearly with Cherdano and Barmar.

 

Lots of people can read minds in many situations. Good bridge players read minds all the time. So do poker players and negotiators.

 

Many bridge players will be able to tell whether an opponent is thinking of what to lead, thinking about the amount of HCPs his partner might hold or thinking about what drink to order.

 

No one can see what neurons are firing in someone else's brain. But seasoned bridge players have vast experience with bridge players' behavior in these three situations to the extent that they can succesfully interpret this behavior. In a similar way, many parents can read their children's minds in a variety of situations ("Ah. You came to ask me whether you can...").

 

I do not consider myself a great mind reader, but I think that over the past 5 years I have a 100% succes rate in preventing opponents from making an opening lead out of turn. And I can't recollect any false positives ("Huh?!? I wasn't going to lead! I was thinking whether I left the lights on at home!"). I guess that Cherdano, Barmar and Fluffy have similar records.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

At the other end of the spectrum we have the obnoxious opps who will ask their partners whether they noticed that it's their turn whenever their partner thought for more than about 2 seconds. That one has about a 10% success rate, and even lower when they do the same when they defend and I declare (although not quite 0% :( ).

 

I agree though with Trinidad that I seem to have quite a good record on noticing these stuff, also when a defender obviously has no idea that they have won the last trick.

[mycroft]

My own personal ethics - which are different, but do not conflict with, bridge ethics as written in the Proprieties, I believe - in this case consists of "I don't have to tell the opponents they turned a trick wrong, and I am not going to. If I catch RHO attempting to lead out of turn, I'll usually try to stop it; if I don't catch it in time, or it's one of those opponents, or ... and the card "could be seen by LHO", I'll insist on my rights, especially if it means I'm making a contract I wouldn't otherwise make. Their mistake for not watching, no less so than "queennoace" or failing to cover.

 

The question of whether I'm allowed to "think about my play" once I've won the trick (when in fact all I'm thinking about is "will he lead and give me options?") is an interesting one. If it ever comes up in a provable way, I'll worry about it.