[quiddity]

If RHO makes a conventional bid for which they have to supply a written defense, does my perusal of the written defense constitute UI for partner? If I have a good hand, and after reading the defense I find that good hands are supposed to pass so I pass, is there any UI? If I have a terrible hand am I supposed to pretend to read the defense or is that illegal?

[chrism]

Your *failure* to peruse the written defense could well be UI to partner unless you are already known to be familiar with the defense. You should always look at the defense whether you think it matters or not.

[quiddity]

Right - I would hope that is the case. I just wanted to make sure that it's not the equivalent of thinking when there's nothing to think about. But I also wanted to know if there was any language in the laws about it.

An example that came up in actual play: the opps opened something like multi 2D. I had a good takeout of spades. I read through the recommended defense; I was supposed to pass and come back in with a takeout double after the opps correct to spades. Probably my interest in the defense tipped off LHO because he psyched a pass. Now my partner with a balanced 9-count was unsure whether he HAD to pass because my reading of the defense was UI which suggested reopening.

[blackshoe]

Your reading of a defense which you are not required to know and presumably do not know suggests only that you want to know what your options are. Your partner, IMO, has nothing which demonstrably could suggest he do any particular thing, therefore he is free to do what he likes.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-27, 16:40, said:

Your reading of a defense which you are not required to know and presumably do not know suggests only that you want to know what your options are.

For most people that's untrue. If quiddity would pass without reading the defence when he has a bad hand, then obviously reading the defence suggests a good hand.

chrism said:

Your *failure* to peruse the written defense could well be UI to partner unless you are already known to be familiar with the defense. You should always look at the defense whether you think it matters or not.

This applies to lots of situations in bridge. It's more common in cases where you might want to know your opponents' methods, rather than here where you might want to know what your own methods are.

An alternative is to look only when you need to, and live with the UI. Or look when you need to and some of the time that you don't; and hope that this reduces the UI by enough.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-July-28, 01:27, said:

For most people that's untrue. If quiddity would pass without reading the defence when he has a bad hand, then obviously reading the defence suggests a good hand.

Does it? Does this depend on whether his partner knows his habits? IAC, perhaps I should have said a priori it doesn't meet the criteria of law 16.

How far shall we go with this? The way the law is written, anything might convey UI. Should we as players assume that partner has always given us UI somehow, and then try to figure out how to avoid taking advantage of whatever UI we might have been given? Worse yet, must we work out the LAs, and which ones could demonstrably have been suggested over which other ones? How long do we want a round to take?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-28, 01:47, said:

Does it? Does this depend on whether his partner knows his habits? IAC, perhaps I should have said a priori it doesn't meet the criteria of law 16.

If partner didn't know quiddity's habits, he could rely on his experience of bridge players. I think almost all players in quiddity's situation, holding a bad hand, would never even think of perusing the defence. What did you do the last time RHO opened a Multi and you had a balanced 9-count?

To avoid giving UI you should either memorise a defence, or follow a policy of reading the defence in this situation (if not always, then a lot of the time). To avoid making partner think he has UI, you should tell him in advance that you're going to do this. To avoid the appearance of UI, you should tell everyone else about the steps you take to avoid giving UI, for example by repeatedly mentioning it on an Internet discussion forum.

The alternative, as I said, is to give UI and live with the consequences.

Quote

How far shall we go with this? The way the law is written, anything might convey UI. Should we as players assume that partner has always given us UI somehow, and then try to figure out how to avoid taking advantage of whatever UI we might have been given?

No, but we should assume that partner has given us UI when he has, in fact, done so.

Quote

Worse yet, must we work out the LAs, and which ones could demonstrably have been suggested over which other ones?

Yes, that's one of your obligations when you have received UI.

Quote

How long do we want a round to take?

Well, I do find that I need longer for a round than most people. I don't think that UI or the avoidance of UI is the main reason, though.

[CSGibson]

If it comes up, then I peruse the defense whether I am going to bid or not - If I'm not going to bid, I want to know what partner's potential calls may mean so that I can bid and alert in relative tempo.

[JLOGIC]

Yes I also tell them when they pre alert multi that I always look, they might be (reasonably?) upset if you looked with a bad hand and hadn't mentioned that.

[awm]

I do think there is something ethically shady about playing a method like Multi (such that there is a very complicated written defense) and then basing your actions on a "read" of whether the opponents looked at the defense / how long they perused it / etc. Obviously in general trying to "read" your opponents is allowed, but the choice of methods here created the situation. A similar one is playing a really weird system with lots of alerts, and then trying to take maximal advantage of whether opponents ask about the alerts (or even, in extreme cases, giving vague information when asked and then making inferences based on whether/how you're further questioned).

[bixby]

awm, on 2013-July-28, 16:43, said:

I do think there is something ethically shady about playing a method like Multi (such that there is a very complicated written defense) and then basing your actions on a "read" of whether the opponents looked at the defense / how long they perused it / etc. Obviously in general trying to "read" your opponents is allowed, but the choice of methods here created the situation. A similar one is playing a really weird system with lots of alerts, and then trying to take maximal advantage of whether opponents ask about the alerts (or even, in extreme cases, giving vague information when asked and then making inferences based on whether/how you're further questioned).

Agreed -- and it is doubly shady to throw in a psych on that basis!

Incidentally, what does it even mean to "psych a pass" in the situation described? I think that when someone psychs, they are pretending to have the hand described by the call psyched. But there is no hand that would pass a multi-2D opening, surely? I suppose someone might think about passing with xx/x/Jxxxxxxx/xx, but isn't multi forcing?

[nige1]

bixby, on 2013-July-28, 19:27, said:

Incidentally, what does it even mean to "psych a pass" in the situation described? I think that when someone psychs, they are pretending to have the hand described by the call psyched. But there is no hand that would pass a multi-2D opening, surely? I suppose someone might think about passing with xx/x/Jxxxxxxx/xx, but isn't multi forcing?

• When your Multi has no strong option, not-vulnerable, it seems natural and sensible to pass on some weak hands.
• Even when you have a strong option, at matchpointed pairs, it is sometimes sensible to pass, on frequency grounds (e.g. if your strong option is 4441 18+ HCP)
• In a variety of circumstances, when RHO shows great interest in proceedings, you may tactically judge that silence is golden.
• The Orange-book used to state that you were expected to bid if game was possible opposite the strong option. In my experience, however, that rule was not enforced.

It's surprising that US players use the Multi, given the handicaps imposed on its use by the ACBL. Elsewhere, players seem to treat it with equanimity

[JLOGIC]

nige1, on 2013-July-28, 19:53, said:

It's surprising that US players use the Multi, given the handicaps imposed on its use by the ACBL. Elsewhere, players seem to treat it with equanimity

Except like, the WBF? They allow written defenses that you can consult.

[aguahombre]

Don't you have to at least look at the defenses when the pre-alert is offered, in order to choose which one you will be using? Otherwise there could be a very long delay while you choose the best defense to fit your particular hand

You still must review (or pretend to read) the stuff each time to be consistent, so mine is really a separate question.

[Cascade]

awm, on 2013-July-28, 16:43, said:

I do think there is something ethically shady about playing a method like Multi (such that there is a very complicated written defense) and then basing your actions on a "read" of whether the opponents looked at the defense / how long they perused it / etc. Obviously in general trying to "read" your opponents is allowed, but the choice of methods here created the situation. A similar one is playing a really weird system with lots of alerts, and then trying to take maximal advantage of whether opponents ask about the alerts (or even, in extreme cases, giving vague information when asked and then making inferences based on whether/how you're further questioned).

I don't see how this can be when the laws specifically allow a player to draw inferences from his opponents tempo.

Additionally there is no requirement to use a prepared defense. You can do so for your benefit at your choice but that does not mean that you will not also have costs with using the defense such as the opponent getting a read on you.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2013-July-28, 22:11, said:

I don't see how this can be when the laws specifically allow a player to draw inferences from his opponents tempo.

Additionally there is no requirement to use a prepared defense. You can do so for your benefit at your choice but that does not mean that you will not also have costs with using the defense such as the opponent getting a read on you.

Somehow this does not seem right. The written defences are there for the benefit of the defenders, since a decision was made that players are not required to learn defences to certain conventions. There should not be a cost associated with using them; I feel strongly about this, but have difficulty explaining why.

By the way, do they still give out the little booklet? If not, is there a way to access all of the ACBL approved defences?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-July-28, 23:15, said:

By the way, do they still give out the little booklet? If not, is there a way to access all of the ACBL approved defences?

I believe they do, but just in case: http://www.acbl.org/...sedatabase.html

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-28, 23:27, said:

I believe they do, but just in case: http://www.acbl.org/...sedatabase.html

Ta.

[mycroft]

You are allowed to base your actions on the mannerisms of your opponents *at your own risk*. I would argue, right to the limit if necessary, that "no matter what hand I had, I want to know my system over this call, so I read the document" is a valid bridge reason to peruse with a yarborough, and if they decided that meant that I had stuff and "guessed" wrong, that's their risk.

As a player who frequently plays oddball systems/ systems with lots of alerts, I take it as one of my downsides that they will pass UI, they will use it, and there's nothing I can do about it except hope they'll be reasonably ethical. Having said that, 4 questions on an unAlerted WJS "because they play weird stuff all the time, and I just wanted to know" (oh, and I have a penalty double of the WJS) was a bit over the top.

[campboy]

gnasher, on 2013-July-28, 03:46, said:

If partner didn't know quiddity's habits, he could rely on his experience of bridge players. I think almost all players in quiddity's situation, holding a bad hand, would never even think of perusing the defence. What did you do the last time RHO opened a Multi and you had a balanced 9-count?

Well, an opening 2♦ is a stop bid. In the EBU, where I am, I'm required to pause, and I'm required not to show indifference when pausing. If I were to pause while obviously not looking at my hand, this would be showing indifference, and, if written defences to multi were permitted in the EBU and I was using one, I don't see why pausing without looking at the defence would be any better.