[gombo121]

An curious question have been raised during a postmortem.

---

What do you bid as South?

OK, that's an interesting question, though not for this forum but for postmortem or possibly for Master Solvers' Club. A player who took part in the discussion stated the following: "I play double for penalty in those colors, so I'm going to bid 4♠ and watch for the opponent's reaction. If I don't like it, I'll run to 4NT."

How do you feel, is this approach (consciously trying to read "tells" off your opponents) acceptable within the letter and/or spirit of the Law or not?


Edit: Let me spell this out, since my writeup causes confusion.
Certainly, you can't run anywhere if 4♠ are passed all round but at those colors it's probably OK. If the intent is to run any double, than it presumably would be stated as such. So the point is that the player wants to run some doubles but not all of them depending on possible mannerisms of the opponents. Law 74C5, as stated by blackshoe, seems to be relevant as well as Law 73D1, but which way it leans?

This post has been edited by gombo121: 2013-January-16, 23:01

[TylerE]

How exactly do you to to 4NT when 4♠ gets passed out?

[blackshoe]

TylerE, on 2013-January-16, 13:57, said:

How exactly do you to to 4NT when 4♠ gets passed out?

You don't, but that's not relevant.

It is appropriate to take note of opponents' reactions and other mannerisms. It is not appropriate to "look intently" at another player for the purpose (Law 74C5).

Edit: I didn't vote in the poll because the correct answer ("none of the above") isn't in there.

[pran]

If the reaction he doesn't like is DOUBLE (in which case he will run) then that is perfectly OK.

But frankly I have a strong feeling that any call other than PASS or DOUBLE by South is suicide.

[gombo121]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-16, 14:42, said:

Edit: I didn't vote in the poll because the correct answer ("none of the above") isn't in there.

Pardon me, I thought I had all my bases covered What kind of choice would you like?

P.S.: I made an addition to the original post to clear things up. And also, I suggest to leave bridge merits of the approach beyond our scope at the moment.

[pigpenz]

So much for screens
Anyway this is not in the spirit of the game

[blackshoe]

gombo121, on 2013-January-16, 23:07, said:

Pardon me, I thought I had all my bases covered What kind of choice would you like?

P.S.: I made an addition to the original post to clear things up. And also, I suggest to leave bridge merits of the approach beyond our scope at the moment.

How about "it depends on how you do it?" I did mention that "looking intently" is a no-no.

pigpenz, on 2013-January-16, 23:17, said:

So much for screens
Anyway this is not in the spirit of the game

Um. What is the referent of "this"?

So much for screens? What do you mean?

[WellSpyder]

I think this is fine. I also think it is stupid!

It is a poor idea partly because unless oppo are very inexperienced you may well not get the information you are looking for from them. But more importantly, if any at all of your "table reading" comes from partner then you have completely fixed yourself.

[gombo121]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-16, 23:33, said:

How about "it depends on how you do it?" I did mention that "looking intently" is a no-no.

I'm not sure I get your meaning.
You do not expect to be able to judge degree of intent in somebody watching someone at the table (never mind agreeing about that), do you?
Or do you mean it is OK to do it covertly, but not openly? I meant this case to fall into "breaking spirit not letter" category.

[barmar]

Law 74C5 says the following isn't allowed:

Quote

looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by unintentionally seeing an opponent’s card*).

Basically, you're not allowed to stare at another player. You're allowed to notice tells from opponents (73D1 says you can draw inferences at your own risk), but you're not allowed to try to induce them by glaring at the player.

Probably a more familiar situation that's similar to the OP is when you have a two-way finesse with AJT in hand opposite Kxx. You lead the J from hand and try to notice whether LHO hitches before playing low. The question is: is it in the spirit of the game to make this play with the specific purpose of trying to read LHO?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-17, 14:32, said:

Probably a more familiar situation that's similar to the OP is when you have a two-way finesse with AJT in hand opposite Kxx. You lead the J from hand and try to notice whether LHO hitches before playing low. The question is: is it in the spirit of the game to make this play with the specific purpose of trying to read LHO?

I don't see why not.

[pigpenz]

it can be part of the game called table presence....but suppose opp hitches with nothing.
Remember a club game in Omaha where someone did Q ask after RKCB, and opp holding Q trump
asked if the partner of the bidder had it!!!!

now how would you read that one????
its a fair question, but how misleading is it???

[blackshoe]

Is it a fair question? I think it depends on why it's asked. Law 73D2 prohibits asking in order to deceive the opponents. If the player who asks holds the Queen, why did he ask?

[sfi]

pigpenz, on 2013-January-18, 12:15, said:

it can be part of the game called table presence....but suppose opp hitches with nothing.
Remember a club game in Omaha where someone did Q ask after RKCB, and opp holding Q trump
asked if the partner of the bidder had it!!!!

now how would you read that one????
its a fair question, but how misleading is it???

I did this once by accident - I had simply forgotten my trump holding. Declarer had no problems taking the two way finesse the correct way. I suspect that to this day he thought I was trying to be sneaky.

[pigpenz]

LOL
that was good for them.
I always wonder what a committee or TD would rule on this when delcarer gets it wrong?
it would seem like it might be a NO LOSE situation for delcarer.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-18, 14:19, said:

Is it a fair question? I think it depends on why it's asked. Law 73D2 prohibits asking in order to deceive the opponents. If the player who asks holds the Queen, why did he ask?

He might want to know whether the responder showed the queen. This could be important to infer whether there might still be an ace or trump king missing. It could also be important to infer extra length with the responder.

Another reason why the player might ask is because he was asking about the whole auction. It would be a little silly to ask about the meaning of every single bid, except for the reply to the queen ask: "Yes, 5+ spades, thank you. Oh, splinter, good. OK, cue, and another cue, all right. RKCB, yep. 1 or 4, got it. Asking for the queen, makes sense. No, I don't want to know the meaning of that one.. ...And I suppose that 6♠ meant he wanted to play there?"

Rik

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between asking about a specific call, which is what the poster said happened, and asking about the entire auction. And I don't know about anyone else, if I ask about the whole auction, I don't say anything until opps are done explaining.

[RMB1]

Not quite the same, but I had a case where a defender (on lead, with trump Q) asked about 5H response to 4NT, "2 aces", defender "denying queen of trumps?", declarer "yes". Declarer failed to locate the trumps queen in the play and asked for a ruling but got no redress. They appealed and lost the appeal (and their deposit). The AC said that once declarer had given an incomplete answer, the opponent could ask for clarification whatever his holding. Effectively, once there has been an incomplete or inadequate explanation, there is always a demonstrable bridge reason to seak clarification.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2013-January-19, 04:10, said:

Not quite the same, but I had a case where a defender (on lead, with trump Q) asked about 5H response to 4NT, "2 aces", defender "denying queen of trumps?", declarer "yes". Declarer failed to locate the trumps queen in the play and asked for a ruling but got no redress. They appealed and lost the appeal (and their deposit). The AC said that once declarer had given an incomplete answer, the opponent could ask for clarification whatever his holding. Effectively, once there has been an incomplete or inadequate explanation, there is always a demonstrable bridge reason to seak clarification.

Yes, this is quite right. Were it not to be so, players who failed to give full information would be rewarded by an improved chance of picking up missing trump queens. "He asked, so his partner must hold it" or "he didn't ask, so he may well hold it".

[c_corgi]

gordontd, on 2013-January-19, 04:59, said:

Yes, this is quite right. Were it not to be so, players who failed to give full information would be rewarded by an improved chance of picking up missing trump queens. "He asked, so his partner must hold it" or "he didn't ask, so he may well hold it".

I very much agree in principle, but in this case it doesn't seem certain that incomplete information has been given: the response could simply have meant "2 aces", without reference to the queen of trumps or indeed any other card. What would be the outcome if the potentially misleading question had been in response to complete disclosure?