[lchiu7]

I have been watching the videos of the Vanderbit 2019 Final and found it very eductional - the minds of experts.

But one thing puzzled me. Watching this session

https://www.youtube....k?feature=share

It seems that Levin and Weinstein (possibly others) just placed their played cards in front of them in any orientation, whether the trick is won or lost. The opponents seem to follow the standard where placing a card in portrait orientation means your side won the trick, and in landscape, you lost.

Is this because, being a top top tournament, there is an official recorder recording the hand and so no matter how you place your cards, the official record of tricks won/lost is with the recorder? Perhaps these top players don't need to look down to see how many tricks they have won or lost - they know in their heads?

[sfi]

Nobody in that final would need to rely on how the cards are placed to have an accurate count of the tricks. It’s just part of counting the hand. It’s important to keep the cards in the correct order though, in case there is any dispute.

[paulg]

It is because the players have developed a bad habit that you would have thought they would have tried hard to eliminate.

You will see lots of top players not placing their played tricks correctly and playing with played cards: given that some cheating allegations that have involved card placement, it is very surprising that they put themselves in this position.

[lchiu7]

 paulg, on 2023-March-11, 02:41, said:

It is because the players have developed a bad habit that you would have thought they would have tried hard to eliminate.

You will see lots of top players not placing their played tricks correctly and playing with played cards: given that some cheating allegations that have involved card placement, it is very surprising that they put themselves in this position.

According to the laws of Duplicate Bridge

B. Keeping Track of the Ownership of Tricks
1. If the player’s side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward his partner.
2. If the opponents have won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward the opponents.
3. A player may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but this right expires when his
side leads or plays to the following trick. If done later Law 16B may apply.

I guess the directors provide more latitude to top players? Sets a bad example of players of lesser calibre watching them play

[jillybean]

Vanderbilt or Club bridge, the laws are not applied uniformly, some laws are not applied at all.
C'est la vie

[pescetom]

 paulg, on 2023-March-11, 02:41, said:

It is because the players have developed a bad habit that you would have thought they would have tried hard to eliminate.

You will see lots of top players not placing their played tricks correctly and playing with played cards: given that some cheating allegations that have involved card placement, it is very surprising that they put themselves in this position.

One of many bad (and illegal) habits they have developed, just look at how S and E both repeatedly close in a pile and play with their quitted tricks.

[sfi]

This feels like an odd windmill to tilt at. The players can reconstruct the hand if they need to without referring to their cards. There's also a BBO operator and cameras to refer to if required.

[pilowsky]

At the bottom of the video it states:

Quote

Please click on the following link if you would like to submit comments regarding a board or hand to the ACBL National Recorder for review. You have the choice on the form to remain confidential. http://www.acbl.org/conduct-and-ethic...

but the link doesn't work.

[pescetom]

 sfi, on 2023-March-11, 16:37, said:

This feels like an odd windmill to tilt at. The players can reconstruct the hand if they need to without referring to their cards. There's also a BBO operator and cameras to refer to if required.

It seems odd to me to consider such mannerisms acceptable, laws apart. Surely they have no logical reason except to put psychological pressure on opponents, even if only a screen mate.

[sfi]

It's a subconscious action people do when thinking. I can't imagine the opponents would feel anything about it at all. In fact, I would expect a few of your opponents do very much the same thing without you even noticing.

[pescetom]

 sfi, on 2023-March-11, 17:08, said:

It's a subconscious action people do when thinking. I can't imagine the opponents would feel anything about it at all. In fact, I would expect a few of your opponents do very much the same thing without you even noticing.

It has become subconscious to them, but they learned to do it by imitation in self-defence.
You're wrong about me not noticing, but I agree I am unusually sensitive about this. I managed to more or less stamp it out in our club, but when I play elsewhere I encounter it frequently. I may ask them politely to stop (and then call TD if they do not) or I may do my best to ignore it, depends on how much it bothers me that day and that opponent.

[lchiu7]

 sfi, on 2023-March-11, 17:08, said:

It's a subconscious action people do when thinking. I can't imagine the opponents would feel anything about it at all. In fact, I would expect a few of your opponents do very much the same thing without you even noticing.

Actually in all my years of playing bridge, I have never seen this behaviour before. But then I have never played in such top level tournaments before and this is the first time I have watched them.

Apart from that I observed a couple of interesting items.
- you can learn a lot from watching the top experts play - especially when confronted with problems that are obvious to you as you can see all 4 hands :-)
- how often they claim quite early when it is obvious what the resut is going to be which speeds up the game considerably. I sometimes claim from about trick 9 or 10 when it's clear what the result is going to be but sometimes my opponents me play the hand out :-(

[jillybean]

 lchiu7, on 2023-March-12, 13:31, said:

Actually in all my years of playing bridge, I have never seen this behaviour before. But then I have played in such top level tournaments before and this is the first time I have watched them.

Apart from that I observed a couple of interesting items.
- you can learn a lot from watching the top experts play - especially when confronted with problems that are obvious to you as you can see all 4 hands :-)
- how often they claim quite early when it is obvious what the resut is going to be which speeds up the game considerably. I sometimes claim from about trick 9 or 10 when it's clear what the result is going to be but sometimes my opponents me play the hand out :-(

That too is an infraction (68D)

[lchiu7]

 jillybean, on 2023-March-12, 13:49, said:

That too is an infraction (68D)

I meant make me play it out. Reading 68D it'a a bit murky but I guess call the director is the best way. Sometimes I get asked when the asker is an inexperiened player and can't see how it would play out.

[mikeh]

I played 45 boards against Levin and Weinstein last November. I don’t recall seeing how they turned the tricks. At that level everyone (except sometimes dummy if dummy is using the time to relax) knows exactly who won which trick. I’m willing to bet that every player, again except on hands where they were dummy, could tell you, post session, each and every card played to every trick that session, other than claimed tricks, not played out (I’d often need to be prompted by telling me my hand but I wouldn’t need hand records).

There’s obviously opportunity for passing illicit information by card placement. At trick three, after declarer wins the trick, I could, as defender, maybe get it ‘wrong’ to request an unusual switch should partner later get in, or to suggest values in the higher of side suits and so on.

Personally, I have enough trouble thinking at the table that the idea of having to add a layer of thought by remembering when and what to signal or what partner’s ‘mistake’ meant that I think this would be very counterproductive even were i (a) I inclined to cheat and (b) played with someone whose reaction to my suggesting this wouldn’t be to quit the partnership!

Also, it’s the sort of signal that one could easily make by actual mistake. At that level (where I occasionally play without much success) the focus is absolute…and it’s not on how one turns the card, so I’ve placed it the wrong way on occasion, when concentrating hard on the next trick/rest of the hand such that my hand is turning the trick without my brain being engaged.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-March-12, 13:49, said:

That too is an infraction (68D)

Maybe he was thinking about BBO, which ignores Law 68 and more or less follows the old Rubber Bridge Laws.
Not that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are much better, in particular they intimidate against not claiming when it is possible, which seems undue given that there is no prize for claiming and almost any doubt will be judged against the claimant.

[lchiu7]

 mikeh, on 2023-March-12, 15:55, said:

I played 45 boards against Levin and Weinstein last November. I don’t recall seeing how they turned the tricks. At that level everyone (except sometimes dummy if dummy is using the time to relax) knows exactly who won which trick. I’m willing to bet that every player, again except on hands where they were dummy, could tell you, post session, each and every card played to every trick that session, other than claimed tricks, not played out (I’d often need to be prompted by telling me my hand but I wouldn’t need hand records).

There’s obviously opportunity for passing illicit information by card placement. At trick three, after declarer wins the trick, I could, as defender, maybe get it ‘wrong’ to request an unusual switch should partner later get in, or to suggest values in the higher of side suits and so on.

Personally, I have enough trouble thinking at the table that the idea of having to add a layer of thought by remembering when and what to signal or what partner’s ‘mistake’ meant that I think this would be very counterproductive even were i (a) I inclined to cheat and (b) played with someone whose reaction to my suggesting this wouldn’t be to quit the partnership!

Also, it’s the sort of signal that one could easily make by actual mistake. At that level (where I occasionally play without much success) the focus is absolute…and it’s not on how one turns the card, so I’ve placed it the wrong way on occasion, when concentrating hard on the next trick/rest of the hand such that my hand is turning the trick without my brain being engaged.

I was also watching Woolsey/Bramley in the 2022 Spingold.

https://www.youtube....k?feature=share

Woolsey is pretty good in the way he places his cards and so Bramley. But their opponents are pretty slack. Declarer often plays with the played tricks.

I guess in the top level rules are relaxed?

[pescetom]

 mikeh, on 2023-March-12, 15:55, said:

I played 45 boards against Levin and Weinstein last November. I don’t recall seeing how they turned the tricks. At that level everyone (except sometimes dummy if dummy is using the time to relax) knows exactly who won which trick. I’m willing to bet that every player, again except on hands where they were dummy, could tell you, post session, each and every card played to every trick that session, other than claimed tricks, not played out (I’d often need to be prompted by telling me my hand but I wouldn’t need hand records).

There’s obviously opportunity for passing illicit information by card placement. At trick three, after declarer wins the trick, I could, as defender, maybe get it ‘wrong’ to request an unusual switch should partner later get in, or to suggest values in the higher of side suits and so on.

Personally, I have enough trouble thinking at the table that the idea of having to add a layer of thought by remembering when and what to signal or what partner’s ‘mistake’ meant that I think this would be very counterproductive even were i (a) I inclined to cheat and (b) played with someone whose reaction to my suggesting this wouldn’t be to quit the partnership!

Also, it’s the sort of signal that one could easily make by actual mistake. At that level (where I occasionally play without much success) the focus is absolute…and it’s not on how one turns the card, so I’ve placed it the wrong way on occasion, when concentrating hard on the next trick/rest of the hand such that my hand is turning the trick without my brain being engaged.

Makes a lot of sense to me, but also highlights the difference between those of us who find playing with the quitted cards or varying orientation an anomaly and those who somehow consider these things normal.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that LW were intentionally communicating in this film, certainly not me.
I can also see that if one wants to play at this level then one has to be able to ignore such illict and intimidating behaviour, the mere fact of worrying about it let alone calling the TD means that one cannot give 100% to the hand.
But surely that's why the Laws forbid such nonsense in the first place?
As a non-professional (and easily intimidated) player, I think it's more important to stand up for my rights than to win.

[sfi]

 lchiu7, on 2023-March-12, 13:31, said:

Apart from that I observed a couple of interesting items.
- you can learn a lot from watching the top experts play - especially when confronted with problems that are obvious to you as you can see all 4 hands :-)
- how often they claim quite early when it is obvious what the resut is going to be which speeds up the game considerably. I sometimes claim from about trick 9 or 10 when it's clear what the result is going to be but sometimes my opponents me play the hand out :-(

One thing to pay attention to when watching is when the players think. They will always have a plan, and very often they are thinking a few tricks ahead. But the reason a good player thinks in the middle of the hand is that they have received new or unusual information, and it's worth working out what made them pause. Conversely, they may get to a K-J guess or two-way finesse later on and not take any time to think about it. That's because they've planned for this situation already.

The more everyone at table knows what's going on, the easier it is to claim. I'd be very surprised if more than 20% of the hands get played out (just a guess, but in 28 hands against good opponents last week we had 26 claims), and you would be surprised at the lack of detail in the claim. There's often just a suggestion of drawing trumps, the defender throws their cards in when the squeeze works, or so on.

Everyone knows the laws are important (although a surprising number of good players don't know what the laws actually say), but there is also the recognition that most people are there to win by skill rather than legal trickery. So adherence to some laws is slacker than to others. For example, if I made a fuss every time the last player didn't put out a pass card rather than simply taking their cards away, it's not going to improve my game and players would think I'm a bit of a prat. If I'm unsure (or if they are starting to annoy me), I will just ask whether they really meant to pass. Much easier than calling the director, and it gets sorted quickly. And most importantly, I get to spend the time concentrating on the problem at hand rather than an unimportant side issue.

Quote

I guess in the top level rules are relaxed?

Not really. If you do something wrong that matters, the opponents will still call the director to sort it out. But players do let some things slide because it doesn't impact the game. And how the tricks are placed is certainly one of those. Practically speaking, it's irrelevant to the outcome of the hand since most players keep their cards in order and you can simply work it out at the end if there is a dispute. But there's almost never a dispute about number of tricks at that level that requires looking through the cards. On the other hand, revokes are definitely possible.

[sfi]

 pescetom, on 2023-March-12, 16:30, said:

I can also see that if one wants to play at this level then one has to be able to ignore such illict and intimidating behaviour, the mere fact of worrying about it let alone calling the TD means that one cannot give 100% to the hand.
But surely that's why the Laws forbid such nonsense in the first place?
As a non-professional (and easily intimidated) player, I think it's more important to stand up for my rights than to win.

You keep calling it intimidating behaviour, but I really don't get why. What am I missing? If they manage to re-order the cards while playing with them and there's a dispute, their behaviour can only be good for your side. 65D and 66D are there to protect you.

Quote

Makes a lot of sense to me, but also highlights the difference between those of us who find playing with the quitted cards or varying orientation an anomaly and those who somehow consider these things normal.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that LW were intentionally communicating in this film, certainly not me.

This is a separate question altogether (and I know that neither you nor the OP were suggesting anything sinister in this case). My experience is that it's both easier and harder to catch people who cheat than you may think. Easier because bridge is a game of logic and if someone wins more than expected, players will notice. If there is any suggestion of cheating someone will look through the hand records and work out whether there is cause for concern, particularly in the last few years (I've done that several times while directing for example). It's harder because even if you suspect it, there is still a long way to go before proving it. The relevance here is that it's unlikely for the first hint of cheating to be someone noticing the method - someone will already suspect something.