[vinchy]

In any live game or tournament, I believe that there is always signals from your opponent that could give away indicators of their hand strength, how much they like it, and such. Bridge may not be poker, but given that these signals are ever-present, would you try and factor this into your bidding decisions, and perhaps also your playing decisions?

Also, if playing against weaker opponents, would you at all consider bidding "higher than should be making", and simply outplay your opponents and hope for bad defense?

So far, I can say, I try. Playing mechanically with no regards for these human factors would make of us robots.

[Mbodell]

Both of these usually matter much more at the margins, like if you have a pure 2-way guess, than to use all the time. I think you should be careful about bidding 1 more because of weak opponents. Sometimes the cards can't help but let the opponents take their tricks. At MP you'll usually score very well for making 10 tricks in the partscore if the field and the limit of the hand is 9 tricks, so you don't need to bid game. At IMPs you'll probably already be bidding your less than 50%, but decent chance games, so not as much reason to bid the the 10-20% games hoping for misdefense to make up the rest. Especially because if the opponents are truly really bad, you should crush them playing down the middle anyways.

[1eyedjack]

Given that this is the B/I forum, I would caution against trying to buck normal actions based on table feel. A B/I's development of table feel will likely be immature and they will have enough to worry about just coping with the legitimate information available.

[P_Marlowe]

Unless you play against peoble you know, figuring out, what certain tells really mean is guessing.
If you play 16 boards against them, maybe you can do it, if you have a two finesse, you can try it.

But in short: Work on the standard stuff.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[karlson]

You should absolutely make use of table feel and indeed it's part of the fun of playing live bridge! I would echo MBodell's point about the fact that you probably don't need it to win against truly awful opponents. Also, when it comes to cardplay, it helps to be objective in the analysis. I can't even count the number of times I thought I had a 100% line based on table feel, went down because the position wasn't what I thought it was, and realized later that another line would have catered to all possibilities.

[cherdano]

P_Marlowe, on 2015-January-19, 04:13, said:

Unless you play against peoble you know, figuring out, what certain tells really mean is guessing.
If you play 16 boards against them, maybe you can do it, if you have a two finesse, you can try it.

But in short: Work on the standard stuff.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Really disagree with this. If I see LHO taking ages to count his points when picking up his hand, I won't make a borderline takeout double of his partners weak two opening. As karlson said, it's fun to figure out these clues (even though I am not particularly good at it).

Btw, I had a funny one in a match last week. RHO opened a weak NT. I overcalled 3♣. LHO doubled. RHO explains it as a penalty double and passes.
Turns out LHO meant it as a takeout double, and RHO took it as penalty despite having ♣xxxx. The funny part is that as I remembered a bit later, LHO gave RHO a really upset look while putting down his double card. Preemptive annoyed look!
In retrospect, think I should have figured out what was going on! (Truth to be told, on this hand P_Marlowe was right. I was making on a guess that I probably always would guess right, and was making easily on the actual defense.)

[mikeh]

I agree that at most levels at which posters here play, there will be 'tells'. Even players with 10000 mps (NA) will have problems maintaining even tempo. The top pros are virtually unreadable on the vast majority of hands, and I think it fair to say that the better the player, the more subtle (and often non-existent) will they be.

It can be very dangerous, however, to read too much into this sort of thing, since firstly some not-good players will break tempo when they have no problem. One of my last ventures into small town bridge, at a nearby sectional a few years ago still sticks in my mind. I had to place a key card in the endgame. I didn't know the local opps, but did know that they weren't strong. My LHO took a long time in the late play, grimacing, sighing, pulling out one card then another. I misread the situation, thinking she was really in trouble, so I played for her to have been squeezed. Of course, she had no cards of any significance and no
doubt was very pleased with herself for having fooled the out-of-town hotshot:)

In addition, sometimes they think they have a problem when they don't. They may be wondering if this is a count or attitude situation, for example, and you have no idea which way they went, or even that that was their problem.

In summary, by all means pay attention, but don't let it become too big a part of your game.

[ahydra]

mikeh, on 2015-January-19, 20:12, said:

It can be very dangerous, however, to read too much into this sort of thing, since firstly some not-good players will break tempo when they have no problem. One of my last ventures into small town bridge, at a nearby sectional a few years ago still sticks in my mind. I had to place a key card in the endgame. I didn't know the local opps, but did know that they weren't strong. My LHO took a long time in the late play, grimacing, sighing, pulling out one card then another. I misread the situation, thinking she was really in trouble, so I played for her to have been squeezed. Of course, she had no cards of any significance and no doubt was very pleased with herself for having fooled the out-of-town hotshot:)

This being a "proper" tournament, I hope you called the TD quoting law 73D2? (Hesitating with no real reason to do so, in an attempt to mislead an opponent, is against the Laws)

At teams vs weak opps, absolutely do push for thin games. Sometimes they end up fixing you by bidding an extremely dodgy game that happens to make, so do the same back It applies to a lesser extent at matchpoints. Indeed vs weak pairs I've had success making thin penalty doubles and getting them one or two off rather than taking the push.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

ahydra, on 2015-January-20, 12:17, said:

This being a "proper" tournament, I hope you called the TD quoting law 73D2? (Hesitating with no real reason to do so, in an attempt to mislead an opponent, is against the Laws)

I hope you were kidding when you posted this.

[mikeh]

ahydra, on 2015-January-20, 12:17, said:

This being a "proper" tournament, I hope you called the TD quoting law 73D2? (Hesitating with no real reason to do so, in an attempt to mislead an opponent, is against the Laws)

At teams vs weak opps, absolutely do push for thin games. Sometimes they end up fixing you by bidding an extremely dodgy game that happens to make, so do the same back It applies to a lesser extent at matchpoints. Indeed vs weak pairs I've had success making thin penalty doubles and getting them one or two off rather than taking the push.

ahydra

It would never occur to me to call the director against a weak player no matter where this happened.

All that would do, in most cases, is create a bad feeling on the part of the weak player, who almost certainly won't think he or she did anything wrong, and if the director ruled against her would tell all of her friends how the director favoured me, as a top player. She surely wouldn't have explained what she did, the acting routine, to her friends, and would probably end up convincing herself that she hadn't done any such acting. Plus experience (as a player and a sometime committee member) makes me almost certain that her partner would claim that he didn't see anything at all.

One cannot 'win' these situations, in any but the most meaningless sense of getting an adjusted score, and on this one I wouldn't even get that....it is wrong to act, but I rely upon it at my peril.

Meanwhile, in a small town tournament, in the Sunday Swiss, my team will win at least 50% of the time...we always have 2 or 3 of the best 4 or 5 players in the event on our team, and usually at least the top 2. And if we don't.....so what....it's only a small sectional. It ain't worth causing resentment and unhappiness.

[mycroft]

And remember that the same problems that plague these people...are trivial to me, and instinctive to Mike.

I can't remember the number of times I've asked what someone was thinking about (as the TD, during the call), getting the answer, and carefully avoiding saying "but there's nothing to think about; that play is auto-lose" because That's Not My Job. For them it was a problem figuring out it was autolose. Or "I know I have nothing, but partner told me she was squeezed on 22 when I pitched from [c]8xxx, so I'd better think about it this time", or whatever.

[42krunner]

I once made a jump overcall holding 6-spades and 0-HCP (Pass - 1C - 2S ...) with the TD (a friend and an expert player) Kib'ing me. The obvious goal was to get them to play in 5C and not 3NT or slam.

He reminded me that my action was permissible in ACBL-land as long as I take that action against everyone and not just weaker players.

[ArtK78]

42krunner, on 2015-January-20, 16:09, said:

I once made a jump overcall holding 6-spades and 0-HCP (Pass - 1C - 2S ...) with the TD (a friend and an expert player) Kib'ing me. The obvious goal was to get them to play in 5C and not 3NT or slam.

He reminded me that my action was permissible in ACBL-land as long as I take that action against everyone and not just weaker players.

I don't know that I agree with that. Your object is to win. And if you judge that against a particular pair you can get away with an action that you might not get away with against another (better?) pair, does that mean that you shouldn't do it?

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2015-January-20, 16:23, said:

I don't know that I agree with that. Your object is to win. And if you judge that against a particular pair you can get away with an action that you might not get away with against another (better?) pair, does that mean that you shouldn't do it?

It really depends.

I won't psyche against really weak players. I won't psyche against slightly better but still not-good players unless I am on friendly terms with them and know that they like to learn. I might then psyche so as to expose them to the notion....psyching is so rarely done these days that many players have no idea how to deal with it or how to identify it.

Classic example: partner opens a weak 2♥ and it goes double on my right. On the 'right' hand, against inexperienced but hoping-to-learn players, I might trot out the baby psyche of 2♠. I wouldn't do that against competent opps, since there would be no point: any decent player would brush it aside, and I'd be better off doing something more preemptive.

I wouldn't do it against most bad players (most bad players don't want to learn: they just want to enjoy the game as they know it)

There is more to the game than winning. Many people who play at the club or even at tournaments play primarily for the social element.

Those of us who take the game more seriously need such social players or the game will die even faster than it has been dying for the past 40 years. We alienate the social players when we insist that they play it the way we do.

Now, when I play the team trials, or the finals of a regional KO, I expect my opps to comply with the Laws and the proprieties, and I also think that it is fair game to use any legal, ethical tactical calls that I think may show a profit.

I think it really a bad idea to treat all opps and all matches/sessions the same.

[Zelandakh]

42krunner, on 2015-January-20, 16:09, said:

I once made a jump overcall holding 6-spades and 0-HCP (Pass - 1C - 2S ...) with the TD (a friend and an expert player) Kib'ing me. The obvious goal was to get them to play in 5C and not 3NT or slam.

He reminded me that my action was permissible in ACBL-land as long as I take that action against everyone and not just weaker players.

The last time I had someone kibbing me live it was also the TD and I chose to make an outright psyche on the hand. I was a little worried that he might give off a tell but as it was clear none of the other players had any idea what was going on it was ok. After the hand, noone said a word about it either.

The rules allow you to psyche any time you want to but it is both bad form and self-defeating to do so against much weaker opponents (why randomise the board when you expect a good score playing normally?) They also allow you to vary your interpretations, but not the system, according to the opponents, score or just the mood of the moment. So no, the expert was giving you false information.

Incidentally the very first WJO I ever made back as a student was 3♦ over a Precision 1♠ at red on ♦J9xxxx and out. We got a top to go with the snide comment after the board from dummy (the club chairman); my partner came to me afterwards with a big smile and told me it was the right call and to keep doing it!

Edit: just noticed the forum and wanted to point out to any N/B players reading that I am not suggesting copying any of the actions described in this post!

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2015-January-20, 17:56, said:

It really depends.

I won't psyche against really weak players. I won't psyche against slightly better but still not-good players unless I am on friendly terms with them and know that they like to learn. I might then psyche so as to expose them to the notion....psyching is so rarely done these days that many players have no idea how to deal with it or how to identify it.

Classic example: partner opens a weak 2♥ and it goes double on my right. On the 'right' hand, against inexperienced but hoping-to-learn players, I might trot out the baby psyche of 2♠. I wouldn't do that against competent opps, since there would be no point: any decent player would brush it aside, and I'd be better off doing something more preemptive.

I wouldn't do it against most bad players (most bad players don't want to learn: they just want to enjoy the game as they know it)

There is more to the game than winning. Many people who play at the club or even at tournaments play primarily for the social element.

Those of us who take the game more seriously need such social players or the game will die even faster than it has been dying for the past 40 years. We alienate the social players when we insist that they play it the way we do.

Now, when I play the team trials, or the finals of a regional KO, I expect my opps to comply with the Laws and the proprieties, and I also think that it is fair game to use any legal, ethical tactical calls that I think may show a profit.

I think it really a bad idea to treat all opps and all matches/sessions the same.

I don't disagree with anything that you said. The point that I was making is the point that you make in your last sentence. And that is exactly what the TD said to 42krunner according to his post. It seems that the TD was advocating that 42krunner do the same type of thing against good players that he was doing against the bad players. Seems to me that he should refrain from psyching against the bad players.

You bring up what amounts to the risk/reward aspect of psyching. There are several reasons for not psyching against a bad player:

1. You are likely to do well against them without psyching. (Risk/reward relating to your score only)
2. If you psych and it works, the opps will be very put off. (Risk/Reward balancing benefits to your score against detriments to the feelings of the opps)
3. Psyching against bad players often ruins the social aspect of the game for the opps. (ditto)