Anoterh ethics question
Wayne Pollock
S A Q 8 S K 7 6
H A Q J H K 10 4
D A J 6 D K 10 9
C 10 9 8 3 C K Q J 4
on a small spade lead. Obviously everything depends on finding the
diamond queen. One way to find it is to lead the jack of hearts at trick
two, and watch North closely. Later, lead the diamond jack and again
watch North. Any variation in tempo (either faster or slower) probably
shows the missing queen.
I have read of this discovery play before, touted as technique. But
recently I was reading "The Compleat Bridge Player" by Mollo, and the
above hand is reported in the chapter on unethical conduct.
So what do you think? Is this type of play on the up and up?
Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist)
Internet: pol...@screamer.csee.usf.edu
Jim Hargrove
In it, declarer played exactly as you suggest and made the hand by
picking up on LHO's habits. He then comments that the hesitation is
unethical. But declarer's play is not unethical. He is merely taking
advantage of the opponent's bad habits.
--
-- jwh
S|ren Turin
This is completely ridicolous. Of course you are allowed to first
lead the jack of hearts and then follow with the jack of diamonds.
Any conclusions you draw from the tempo of your opponents is ENTIRELY
up to you. Your opponents are naturally not allowed to hesitate if
they have no problem, but that goes for all situations. If the late Mr.
Mollo really thought like this, i can only say that my esteem for him
has dropped from very low to below zero.
Regards Soren Turin
Douglas Newlands
:You as West are declarer in 6NT on:
:
: S A Q 8 S K 7 6
: H A Q J H K 10 4
: D A J 6 D K 10 9
: C 10 9 8 3 C K Q J 4
:
:on a small spade lead. Obviously everything depends on finding the
:diamond queen. One way to find it is to lead the jack of hearts at trick
:two, and watch North closely. Later, lead the diamond jack and again
:watch North. Any variation in tempo (either faster or slower) probably
:shows the missing queen.
:
:I have read of this discovery play before, touted as technique. But
:recently I was reading "The Compleat Bridge Player" by Mollo, and the
:above hand is reported in the chapter on unethical conduct.
:
:So what do you think? Is this type of play on the up and up?
When beginners hold a Q and dummy holds a tenace over them and you lead
towards it they don't know what to do and they hesitate - no problem they are
beginners. Some never improve. Some realise they hesitate and give away the Q
so they use their animalistic cunning and reverse their behaviour playing
quickly with it and hesitating without. These same people also tend to become
adept at the hesitation with a singleton. Now if you come to this club for a
single game you'll get stung and be upset and if they went elsewhere (which
often they don't - perhaps because of the fuss that other people make about
their play) they would sting some people.
Remember before we go further that this is not a metropolitan club
where state and national events are run. In this club I know everyone and have
them categorised as "hesitators with" and "hesitators without"etc. so I never
have to adopt the above procedure, it is purely for players I am not sure
about. The other thing about this situation is that it is not in my interest
to complain about their behaviour because one can read these people like a
book and why should I throw away this advantage? If you are about to write in
and say this is not bridge etc don't bother, I agree entirely but I like the
occasional casual games with friend who can't/won't play in a better game.
If you want to see why these people are easy consider a trump suit of KJ9x
opposite A108xx: you lead small towards table with the hesitator on your left.
A "hesitator with" or a "hesitator without" both give away the position of the
queen whether they hesitate or not. A "hesitator with a singleton" gives it away
if he hesitates and if he doesn't hesitate and you rise with dummy's honour
and lead small and RHO follows small you KNOW to drop and not finesse.
Another related topic called "tells" in Lawrences book "how to read your
opponents cards" is related to speed of play. Unfortunately this has a Tao-ish
property in that it's hard to describe and you cannot actively look for it -
you have to be passively reflecting what is happening to feel it. The odd card
will come at a different tempo or with unusual abruptness and can give away
card placement. This is much more subtle than artificial tempo changes done
with intent to deceive.
Another give away is how declarer asks for cards from dummy; there is often a
difference between "King" (and it will win because I've got the ace"
and "King" (I wonder if the ace was onside)
Next time you're dummy listen to partner calling for cards but don't try too
hard!
I have no difficulty with these or other techniques for inducing an
informative break in tempo because you are specifically allowed to take
cognisance of such things at your own risk (but they are not allowed to do
them with a view to deception). The above example is one for people you don't
know. Another variant is to start cashing a long suit (doesn't have to be at
lightning speed!) but before you get to the end play the important suit
unexpectedly and see what it produces.
What about ruffing finesses later in play, dummy has 765 and rho has
82 and the rest are gone. Calling for the top card heightens the impression
you are going to finesse and he might be more likely to cover, calling for the
small one heightens the impression you are going to ruff particularly if he is
not sure you know how the cards lie so he is more likely to play low!
When you are declarer I think you have carte blanche and if nothing else will
do I am happy to "play the man" rather than the cards. When you are a defender
you cannot do it because declarer is working 2 hands not just one and you
should not see partner either literally or metaphorically including his tempo
of play. It really annoys me when defenders think then hold up because you can
be sure the other defender uses the hesitation to place another card in his
reconstruction of the hand when he has no right to that info. But I don't see
anything that can be done about it.
doug.
Aviel Roy-Shapira
says:
>awa
Play these Hands with Me. (It may have been published in the US under a
different title. I urge anyone to refer to his comments about the play and
the ethical implications.
Second, I disagree with Doug that 'playing the table' is not bridge. On the
contrary, it is a part and parcel of the game, as it is in Chess. Just look
at the psychological maneuvers of Bobby Fisher, Karpov and Kasparov at
world championships.
I do agree with Doug that some of the table sense is Tao'ish, and cannot be
taught. However it is rare indeed to find opponents who don't betray the
position of the Ace, when you lead a low card towards the King in dummy, and
it holds. Queens are amore difficult.
I don't prefer to play the table, and hard evidence is usually more reliable
But I don't hesitate to use any informtion. When I have to play the table,
I am not always right, but I am right more often then not.
BTW, one of the easiest tells is when you take an early finesse in a critical
suit and a smart defender ducks with a Kx or Qxx, expecting you to repeat the
finesse, and lose tempo or entry. Most people will repeat the finesse even
though they sense the ploy, but I play according to my feel of the table, and
have rarely erred. True, you may end up looking foolish, but this is a risk
I'm not afraid to take.