[gombo121]

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 09:05, said:

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.

 blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 20:00, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-24, 15:33, said:

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]

 gombo121, on 2013-January-24, 23:22, said:

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]

 barmar, on 2013-January-24, 19:31, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-January-25, 02:40, said:

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]

 gombo121, on 2013-January-24, 23:22, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-25, 03:44, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-25, 06:05, said:

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.bridgebas...m-with-a-twist/

[Fluffy]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-24, 17:16, said:

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]

 gombo121, on 2013-January-24, 23:22, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-25, 03:44, said:

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]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-January-25, 02:40, said:

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]

 gombo121, on 2013-January-25, 11:37, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-25, 06:05, said:

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.