[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-01, 19:04, said:

Why is this question I the Laws forum when it concerns a game that does not follow the laws? The players were engaging in a private pastime, as mentioned above by another poster, and these forums are about bridge.

Because Fluffy wants to know would be permitted in a game that does follow the rules.

Quote

As to the questions out "deliberately waiting", well, no observer can ever know whether the declarer was doing that or was taking stock and thinking about what to do next.

The detectability of an act doesn't tell us anything about its legality.

[gnasher]

I think it's illegal under Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ... the haste or hesitancy of a call or play".

I think it's also illegal under Law 74C. 74C lists "examples" of things that are illegal. They're merely examples, so this is not a complete list. In a better world, the examples would be accompanied by a definition of what is illegal. As there is no such definition, the implication is that other things of a similar nature are also illegal.

[blackshoe]

EricK, on 2014-March-02, 11:36, said:

Slightly off-topic, but tangential to this: If you notice an opponent has placed a trick the wrong way, do you point this out immediately, or do you leave him thinking his side has won one more/fewer tricks until the end of the hand?

pran, on 2014-March-02, 13:07, said:

If I notice that he apparently is about to lead out of turn because of an incorrect comprehension that he won the last trick I certainly take steps to stop him. How he keeps track of tricks won and lost is none of my business.

Depends where you're sitting.

Quote

Law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly be pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later, Law 16B may apply.

Granted no one has to call attention to a trick turned wrong - when a player "may do" something, failure to do it is not wrong - but you're certainly within your rights to do so - and in most cases I would. Note also "require" in the first sentence of that law. Some of the "cooler" players here just toss their quitted cards in a pile, with no particular organization to it except the last trick quitted is on top. This infracts Law 65C and either Law 65B1 or Law 65B2, but I wouldn't bother with it - it's not worth the hassle. Players who do this, though, jeopardize their rights (see Law 65D) and I would expect a director to take that into account if a question arises.

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on 2014-March-02, 05:03, said:

Bridge players constantly gain advantage from reading their opponents' mind.
Why are we supposed to think they turn off that part of the brain whenever we are discussing laws and rulings?

I understand it is hard to legislate the ethical aspects of bridge. (Say I notice that my RHO is completely disinterested, so I correctly conclude that he has no tricks coming, and suspect that my LHO should have been able to come to the same conclusion, and that he gained advantage from using this UI. How is a TD supposed to determine the facts if I called him to the table - even if he trusts my table feel?)
But pretending that part of bridge does not exist at all is the most idiotic solution.

I'm not pretending anything. I said you can't read minds. I'm pretty close to 100% certain I'm right about that - so far, I've only met telepaths in books and movies. Reading an opponent's mannerisms ("table feel") is another thing. It's legal, it's done at your own risk unless your opponent is deliberately trying to mislead you, and yes, it's very difficult to determine the facts in these cases. So?

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-March-02, 12:53, said:

The way I understand Law 74 it is absolutely unacceptable to in any way influence an opponent to commit an irregularity, neither directly nor as a consequence of another irregularity.

Apparently you do not understand this.

A) Where in Law 74 does it say this? A? B? C?

Again, you're understanding things that aren't there.
I asked you to please refer to a Law that says that it is forbidden to allow an opponent from committing an irregularity. I even accommodated you by saying that any irregularity will do (not just "all irregularities" or the specific irregularity of leading out of turn). The only thing you do is refer to a law that doesn't say a word about any of this this, but you "understand" it that way, anyway.

B) Where do you get the idea that a player who waits (i.e. is doing nothing at all) influences an opponent to commit an irregularity?

Certainly, he is not preventing him from committing an irregularity. But not preventing someone to do something is very different from influencing him to do something.

This should be fairly clear.

Now Gnasher is making an honest attempt at trying to find such a law:

gnasher, on 2014-March-02, 13:38, said:

I think it's illegal under Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ... the haste or hesitancy of a call or play".

The article doesn't apply since it deals with "misleading an opponent". But declarer didn't mislead any opponent: The opponent had misled himself. All declarer does is refrain from setting the opponent straight and wait.

gnasher, on 2014-March-02, 13:38, said:

I think it's also illegal under Law 74C. 74C lists "examples" of things that are illegal. They're merely examples, so this is not a complete list. In a better world, the examples would be accompanied by a definition of what is illegal. As there is no such definition, the implication is that other things of a similar nature are also illegal.

Other than your first sentence, I fully agree. That is why I accommodated Pran by accepting any example that was similar. The problem is that there is no example whatsoever in Law 74 that says, suggests or even implies that a player is supposed to prevent his opponents' irregularities, not about irregularities in general, not about leading out of turn, not about revoking, nor making an insufficient bid, nothing.

Rik

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-02, 13:44, said:

Granted no one has to call attention to a trick turned wrong - when a player "may do" something, failure to do it is not wrong - but you're certainly within your rights to do so - and in most cases I would. Note also "require" in the first sentence of that law. Some of the "cooler" players here just toss their quitted cards in a pile, with no particular organization to it except the last trick quitted is on top. This infracts Law 65C and either Law 65B1 or Law 65B2, but I wouldn't bother with it - it's not worth the hassle. Players who do this, though, jeopardize their rights (see Law 65D) and I would expect a director to take that into account if a question arises.

Any competent director will do.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-02, 15:05, said:

The problem is that there is no example whatsoever in Law 74 that says, suggests or even implies that a player is supposed to prevent his opponents' irregularities, not about irregularities in general, not about leading out of turn, not about revoking, nor making an insufficient bid, nothing.

Rik

Not everything is spelled out in detail in the laws, and from my experience with this discussion so far I honestly consider it a waste of time trying any further to make you understand the ethics in the game of bridge. sorry.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-02, 15:05, said:

Other than your first sentence, I fully agree. That is why I accommodated Pran by accepting any example that was similar. The problem is that there is no example whatsoever in Law 74 that says, suggests or even implies that a player is supposed to prevent his opponents' irregularities, not about irregularities in general, not about leading out of turn, not about revoking, nor making an insufficient bid, nothing.

"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".

[lamford]

Clearly the game being played was still bridge. Technically, South, if wanting to waive the penalty for the lead out of turn, should call the director and ask him to utilise his Law 81C5 option. The director will normally exercise his discretion and do so. In practice, of course, a player often says "just pick it up", and I have seen that even in major events, after, say, a LOOT. I agree with gnasher that it is illegal for South to wait extra time for a lead out of turn. After he ruffs the diamond, there is little to think about, and declarer will normally draw trumps, keeping the six of spades as an entry if necessary, test for diamonds 4-4 and then concede a club if they are not. Any delay which the TD thinks is with the intent of getting East to lead out of turn should be punished. If East has led out of turn before declarer could play at normal tempo, then South can of course require the ace of clubs to be discarded on a trump and make 11.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-02, 13:50, said:

I'm not pretending anything. I said you can't read minds. I'm pretty close to 100% certain I'm right about that - so far, I've only met telepaths in books and movies. Reading an opponent's mannerisms ("table feel") is another thing. It's legal, it's done at your own risk unless your opponent is deliberately trying to mislead you, and yes, it's very difficult to determine the facts in these cases. So?

Reading minds is not the same thing as telepathy. It just means inferring what someone is thinking, and this is quite possible without supernatural powers. People do it all the time.

[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]

gnasher, on 2014-March-02, 15:58, said:

"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.