[barmar]

Isn't this essentially the same as the issue in a thread last year about asking about whether an honor lead denies a particular card when declarer is looking at the card in his hand?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-18, 19:47, said:

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.

I reread the post and nowhere does he state that this was the only call asked for. In fact, he doesn't state any context in which the question was asked.

You asked why ("in what context?") one would ask about a queen ask when one can see the queen in his own hand and I gave you two examples of reasons/contexts. Both contexts were entirely consistent with the information in pigpenz' post.

blackshoe, on 2013-January-18, 19:47, said:

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.

It is nice that you do it that way. I sometimes point at each individual call in the auction, which is then explained to me.

One reason is that I don't want an explanation like "I have been relaying and he has shown ...". Many people like explanations like that, but I don't, since it doesn't show what decisions the relayer made (why did he continue the relaying or why did he stop?).
A second reason is that I am controlling the tempo of the explanation, so that I can make sure that I understand what is said, before we move on to the next call.
A third reason is that I can ask follow up questions about each individual call immediately (e.g. "Was it forcing?", "Does fast arrival apply here?" or (after 4♣ has been explained as an Italian cue) "Do you play serious or frivolous 3NT (or something else for 3NT)?").

I am not the only one who asks for explanations in this way. And there are a lot of other ways people ask for explanations.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-20, 02:48, said:

I reread the post and nowhere does he state that this was the only call asked for. In fact, he doesn't state any context in which the question was asked.

You asked why ("in what context?") one would ask about a queen ask when one can see the queen in his own hand and I gave you two examples of reasons/contexts. Both contexts were entirely consistent with the information in pigpenz' post.


It is nice that you do it that way. I sometimes point at each individual call in the auction, which is then explained to me.

One reason is that I don't want an explanation like "I have been relaying and he has shown ...". Many people like explanations like that, but I don't, since it doesn't show what decisions the relayer made (why did he continue the relaying or why did he stop?).
A second reason is that I am controlling the tempo of the explanation, so that I can make sure that I understand what is said, before we move on to the next call.
A third reason is that I can ask follow up questions about each individual call immediately (e.g. "Was it forcing?", "Does fast arrival apply here?" or (after 4♣ has been explained as an Italian cue) "Do you play serious or frivolous 3NT (or something else for 3NT)?").

I am not the only one who asks for explanations in this way. And there are a lot of other ways people ask for explanations.

Rik

I go with the evidence presented. That evidence is that the player asked whether the response to 4NT showed the queen. No evidence was presented that he asked about anything else.

"why" ≠ "in what context". That said, I grant that he may have wanted to know if the bidder showed extra length (btw, if the correct explanation is "the queen or extra length" then "yes, he showed the queen" is MI).

I described how I do it. I didn't say that's the only way. Still, I think you're a little too fussy in the way you do it. Certainly I've never found it hard to ask for further information about individual calls after an explanation of the entire auction (however presented) is completed.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-20, 10:13, said:

Still, I think you're a little too fussy in the way you do it. Certainly I've never found it hard to ask for further information about individual calls after an explanation of the entire auction (however presented) is completed.

I think you are misunderstanding me. My problem is not that the opponents might be unwilling to answer further questions. So it is not because I want to be fussy.

My point is that I want to gather information in the way that makes it easiest (and fastest) for me to understand. And the way my brain is wired is such that in many cases it is easiest to understand their bidding if I get a full explanation of each individual bid in the order that they were made. That is why I am sometimes asking in this particular way.

If it is easier for your brain to first get a full idea of the auction and then "zoom in" on the details then by all means ask that way. But in some cases the chronological way is better suited for my brain (and that of some others).

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-20, 10:13, said:

I go with the evidence presented. That evidence is that the player asked whether the response to 4NT showed the queen. No evidence was presented that he asked about anything else.

Now I am getting fussy. Please reread the post. You are wrong. That was not the evidence.

The evidence was that the player asked for the meaning of a response to the queen ask (i.e. not the meaning of the response to 4NT). From the fact that pigpenz didn't mention anything about other questions you are inferring that there can't have been any. (And you call that "going with the evidence", LOL.)

I have never said that there were other questions. I attemted to answer your question:

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

If the player who asks holds the Queen, why did he ask?

I gave you not one, but two possible valid reasons (many more exist) why a player who holds the queen might ask for the meaning of a queen ask response. And you say that one of those reasons (it is one question in a series) is impossible because pigpenz didn't mention that there were additional questions. Did I somewhere state that this particular reason must have been applicable in pigpenz' situation? I don't think so. So don't start arguing that I did. I gave it as one possible reason why one might ask when holding the queen. And it is entirely consistent with the evidence that he presented.

And finally, not that this is at all relevant, if you then decide to "go with the evidence", maybe you could think along a little bit and reconsider your inference that there was only a question about the response to the queen asking bid. This is a typical case of "the dog that didn't bark":

The opponents are having a slam auction. A player is not interested in the meaning of the early auction, he is not interested in any cuebids that might have been exchanged, he is not interested in the meaning of 4NT, he is not interested in the meaning of the response to 4NT, he is not interested in the meaning of the next bid (which asked for the queen), but then suddenly he comes to life because now he wants to know what the meaning of the response to the queen ask is ("What did 5♥ mean?").

I would consider this scenario highly unlikely to begin with.

But on top of that you know that it is highly inappropriate in its own right to ask a question about one particular bid in the auction, whether you hold the trump queen or not. And you know that pigpenz knows this too. Now would pigpenz think it worth wondering whether it is appropriate to ask a question about the response to a queen ask when holding the queen yourself when there would have been a blatantly obvious other reason why asking the question was already highly inappropriate no matter who held the queen?

If pigpenz didn't bark (sorry pigpenz) about the fact that the player singled out one bid in the auction to ask about, then he probably didn't have a reason to bark. Therefore, we infer that -in all likeliness- this wasn't the only question that was asked. Not that it really matters, though, because I never argued that more questions must have been asked - I merely offered it as a possibility.

Rik

[pigpenz]

actually I was kibbing at the time, and the only question asked was whether or not the bid showed the Q trump.
The person who asked was a competent player not top notch but still.....after the game I asked Alan Stout, David King,
Jim Fellows, and Jim Nash about the question....they just laughed...was at the bar afterwards....and said what would you expect
from that person.

trumps were 2-2 no harm no foul....just a theoretical question

[blackshoe]

Okay, I should have said "the response to the queen ask" rather than "the response to 4NT". Sue me.

As for the rest, I stand by what I said.

[Fluffy]

With this hand it would be stupid, but I have overcalled 4♠ with 5♠-6m on the past with similar intent.

I did it twice on a short period, it was funny because the second time, with screens, my partner suspected what was going on, I didn't have to remove my double, partner did it before me to 5♣. He said he had seen blood in his RHO's eyes when she doubled 4♠ with KJ98xx. Also funny I had problems deciding wich minor to play because I was almost sure with this little bidding at high level that we had 6-2 fit in both minors, I was right.

[RunemPard]

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???

Off topic and random...but this made me think about...

[gombo121]

RunemPard, thank you for sharing the video. But you can't pull the trick in bridge, can you? It would run afoul 73D2.
That's the thing which bothers me.

When I started this topic I was absolutely sure that the answer for my question is "it's against spirit of the game. Almost impossible to nail down, granted, but an ideal ethical player wouldn't do that". So, I was surprised to see that opinion of the comunity is almost unanimously the opposite. That's fine, but then, aren't the rules skewed? One can read opponent, one can even set the opponent up for the purpose, but the opponent is prohibited to couneract in any way, even in a small one like hesitating with three smalls, never mind stunts like in the video.

It seems to me that's unfair. It should be either all out psychological warfare or trying to exclude reading the opponents at all. The current state just does not make sense for me.

[blackshoe]

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".

[Zelandakh]

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".

So your solution to a opponent breaching 74C5 is to breach 74C7 and/or 73D2? Sounds about right...

[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-24, 09:33, said:

So your solution to a opponent breaching 74C5 is to breach 74C7 and/or 73D2? Sounds about right...

I think you misunderstood. Blackshoe meant (I hope) that if you maintain a steady tempo there is nothing to read.

So, as a concrete example, when declarer has ATx in dummy and you sit in front of it with the queen, you should have decided whether to cover a jack with the queen before declarer plays the jack. If you can duck smoothly, he might/will play partner for the queen. If you need to think before you duck, you are a lame duck.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

It seems I did misunderstand - I saw the "though not always required" subclause and read something into it. On the other hand, tells do not always come in the form of tempo changes, indeed there are many more tells of other types. Ask any poker player.

[iviehoff]

The purpose of having screens was to make sure that players were not reading tells from their partners, who are probably a lot easier to read than opponents. Certain players seemed to be substantially reduced in their abilities following the introduction of screens. However screens, as designed, screens also removed one of the opponents from direct view and I have sometimes wondered whether that was offensive to one's right to use one's opponents' mannerisms. I have also sometimes wondered whether there is systematic advantage in being NS or EW with screens, in terms of observing ones opponents - NS can see a player who immediately follows them, whereas EW can see a player who immediately precedes them, in the order of play.

[Trinidad]

iviehoff, on 2013-January-24, 11:20, said:

The purpose of having screens was to make sure that players were not reading tells from their partners, who are probably a lot easier to read than opponents. Certain players seemed to be substantially reduced in their abilities following the introduction of screens. However screens, as designed, screens also removed one of the opponents from direct view and I have sometimes wondered whether that was offensive to one's right to use one's opponents' mannerisms. I have also sometimes wondered whether there is systematic advantage in being NS or EW with screens, in terms of observing ones opponents - NS can see a player who immediately follows them, whereas EW can see a player who immediately precedes them, in the order of play.

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

[blackshoe]

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.

Interesting. Do you know how well it worked?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-24, 16:55, said:

Interesting. Do you know how well it worked?

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

[barmar]

While the laws permit you to take inference from opponents' mannerisms, I don't think it's considered an integral part of the game. Ideally, the game would be just about the cards. However, the lawmakers didn't consider it fair (or practical, I suspect) to prohibit these inferences; only communication between partners raises the spectre of cheating. But if playing conditions get in the way (screens, online bridge), it's not considered a significant change to the game (it's arguably less significant than online bridge preventing irregularities like insufficient bids, plays out of turns, and revokes).

Because the game is supposed to be about the bids and cards, not mannerisms, I'm actually on the side of thinking that trying to induce tells is against the spirit of the game. But it's borderline, so I wouldn't think too poorly of a player who tried it.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-24, 10:12, said:

It seems I did misunderstand - I saw the "though not always required" subclause and read something into it. On the other hand, tells do not always come in the form of tempo changes, indeed there are many more tells of other types. Ask any poker player.

Of course. Tempo changes, facial expressions, gasps, changes in posture, and many other things are tells. Reducing or eliminating them falls under "unvarying manner" IMO.

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.