[wank]

Opp had a whine at my partner for stopping to think for a KJ guess instead of doing the thinking prior to leading to the trick.

I've heard this theory before but consider it to be rubbish.

Views?

[jdonn]

I intentionally lead it before deciding what to do. Maybe the ace (or queen or show out) appears and you just saved everyone a bunch of time. But, if they follow low and I start thinking, I make a point not to look at the opponents. That could be disconcerting to them. If you have paused long enough at trick 1 before playing, then the opponents have gotten all the time they need to consider future decisions like what to do if you lead toward a KJ in dummy.

[PhantomSac]

 wank, on 2015-April-26, 12:39, said:

Opp had a whine at my partner for stopping to think for a KJ guess instead of doing the thinking prior to leading to the trick.

I've heard this theory before but consider it to be rubbish.

Views?

I have never heard of this theory before lol, what is the idea behind it?

Like jdonn I always play it before deciding since the ace might pop, or they might showout, or it might be stiff Q, blah blah. I would find it annoying to no end if my opp thought for like a minute before leading up to it and that was the whole hand and it was AQ onside lol. And if it's AQ offside sometimes the defender can work out to say "it doesn't matter" to save the table some time if it's at the end of the hand, but not before it's played (since they might get squeezed or endplayed or something).

Another of my favorites is people who have AKJxx opp xxxx and cash the ace, then come to their hand and go into the tank. Why not play one as most of the time it will go queen or showout on your left, you are just wasting time a majority of the time for no reason.

[gnasher]

I consider this theory to be (a) not supported by the Laws and (b) rubbish.

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2015-April-26, 15:33, said:

I consider this theory to be (a) not supported by the Laws and (b) rubbish.

Well, all I can say is that when a declarer plays a card in this position and then goes into the tank I feel very uncomfortable and stressed. Should I look around, look at my cards,look at the dummy, should I take a sip of wine, idly open my scorecard, etc. Worse is when there is a two-way finesse position. Then I feel that anything I do or don't do becomes a coca-cola coup situation.

And it cannot be denied that some people do this purposely to see if one of the defenders twitches.

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-26, 19:19, said:

Well, all I can say is that when a declarer plays a card in this position and then goes into the tank I feel very uncomfortable and stressed. Should I look around, look at my cards,look at the dummy, should I take a sip of wine, idly open my scorecard, etc. Worse is when there is a two-way finesse position. Then I feel that anything I do or don't do becomes a coca-cola coup situation.

And it cannot be denied that some people do this purposely to see if one of the defenders twitches.

My recommendation is to decide what to do beforehand and then do it consistently. Knowing what you will do in these situations helps to take the stress away from working out how to behave. I have a standard (very boring and non-bridge related) topic I contemplate in these positions, so I'm doing my best to not give information away by mannerisms.

[nige1]

Wank, Gnasher, JDonn, and Phantomsac say that when you have a guess, there is no technical ethical or legal reason to delay leading towards KJ.., until after deciding what to do. That seems right in principle. I agree with Vampyr, however, that some ordinary players who do this hope to induce a tell from LHO, so that they can accomplish a coca-cola coup. Others lead quickly to induce a break in tempo that they may be able to use later, as the basis for a director call. The sfi approach (if possible, think before you lead) seems better.

Recently I've noticed a ploy used by some (unethical?) defenders when declarer leads towards KJx in dummy. LHO, holding say AQx, hesitates noticeably. Declarer may use that inference to play the king, so losing a potential trick in the suit,

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2015-April-26, 20:26, said:

Recently I've noticed a ploy used by some (unethical?) defenders when declarer leads towards KJx in dummy. LHO, holding say AQx, hesitates noticeably. Declarer may use that inference to play the king, so losing a potential trick in the suit,

I once had this happen in a 2-card ending -- I led from hand and LHO, with Qx, gave it a look before playing low. I had already decided to play the king anyway.... In any case I don't think that the player was unethical, because she was very inexperienced. She told the director that she was trying to decide whether to put in the queen, but actually I think that she didn't actually k ow that she couldn't use tempo in that way.

[sfi]

 nige1, on 2015-April-26, 20:26, said:

The sfi approach (if possible, think before you lead) seems better.

Sorry for being unclear. I was saying that you, as defender, should have a standard way of reacting when declarer pauses for a guess. That way you don't stress trying to work out how not to give information away. You could decide to always remember where your last holiday was, for example, or study the design on the back of the cards, or whatever. Now when something like this comes up (and you don't need to think about the hand), you know how to react.

I don't have any real insight about when to think about whether to play the King or the Jack - I suspect I do a bit of both. The only additional factor that I don't believe has been mentioned is that if you have this guess early in the hand, is it's worth doing your thinking before the trick. It may not be clear to the defence that this is the critical decision and they may go wrong. If you hesitate after one opponent plays, it's much easier to work out what you are thinking about.

[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2015-April-26, 22:38, said:

Sorry for being unclear. I was saying that you, as defender, should have a standard way of reacting when declarer pauses for a guess. That way you don't stress trying to work out how not to give information away. You could decide to always remember where your last holiday was, for example, or study the design on the back of the cards, or whatever. Now when something like this comes up (and you don't need to think about the hand), you know how to react.

This helps with the mental element, but doesn't help with physical factors, such as should I hold my cards in my hand or leave them on the table, should I have a sip of my drink etc

Or maybe with the Q and not the A I should move one card to the front...

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-27, 01:02, said:

This helps with the mental element, but doesn't help with physical factors,

Aren't the physical factors a consequence of the mental element?

If you have been thinking for 50 seconds about your last holiday, regardless of whether you hold the queen or ace, and your mind wondered to that nice little restaurant where they had that very special beer, and you think: "BEER!" then you will want to drink some beer. How will that tell declarer whether you have the ace or queen?

On the other hand, if you are thinking "I hope he plays the king, becfause O have the queen." You might end up whistling "God save the Queen". That would indeed give away something.

But beer?!? What would you conclude from an opponent taking a drink if you were declarer?

Rik

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-27, 01:02, said:

This helps with the mental element, but doesn't help with physical factors, such as should I hold my cards in my hand or leave them on the table, should I have a sip of my drink etc

Or maybe with the Q and not the A I should move one card to the front...

True - that's a harder question. I think I fold up my card after most tricks, and certainly when declarer is thinking for a bit. That means it's harder for them to take inferences when I fan the cards and find the right one no matter what.

But I've certainly picked these sorts of situations when opponents play too smoothly as well, so it's not clear what to do.

[jdonn]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-26, 19:19, said:

Well, all I can say is that when a declarer plays a card in this position and then goes into the tank I feel very uncomfortable and stressed. Should I look around, look at my cards,look at the dummy, should I take a sip of wine, idly open my scorecard, etc. Worse is when there is a two-way finesse position. Then I feel that anything I do or don't do becomes a coca-cola coup situation.

And it cannot be denied that some people do this purposely to see if one of the defenders twitches.

I think this is a very fair point. Like I said, I make a point to not look at the defenders when I'm in this position. I look at my cards, or straight down.

[Vampyr]

 jdonn, on 2015-April-27, 11:07, said:

I think this is a very fair point. Like I said, I make a point to not look at the defenders when I'm in this position. I look at my cards, or straight down.

Yes, if everyone did this it would be much less stressful for the defenders.

[mycroft]

I certainly know one or two players I'd want partner to be the screenmate of - especially if that partner is from out of town.

I, too have the "oh sure, waiting for the twitch are we?" along with "I wonder what my tells actually *are*" - likely "WTH are you thinking about" if I don't have it and "how do I look innocent" if I do.

[Cascade]

I think this law applies

"73D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to
maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should
be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of
their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner
in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.
Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an
opponent, and at his own risk. "

Some object, in that it is under "Communication" but the laws specifically say that headings do not limit the application of the law.

"Where headings remain they do not limit the application of any law, nor indeed does the omission of a cross-reference. "

[WellSpyder]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-26, 19:19, said:

Well, all I can say is that when a declarer plays a card in this position and then goes into the tank I feel very uncomfortable and stressed. Should I look around, look at my cards,look at the dummy, should I take a sip of wine, idly open my scorecard, etc. Worse is when there is a two-way finesse position. Then I feel that anything I do or don't do becomes a coca-cola coup situation.

And it cannot be denied that some people do this purposely to see if one of the defenders twitches.

I have some sympathy with the 2-way finesse position, where maybe the only thing declarer is thinking about is what he can learn from your or your partner's body language. But in the situation described by OP I don't really see the problem. The only time it matters what declarer does is when you and your partner each have one of the critical cards, and this will be the case when it is right to play the J and when it is right to play K, so how can declarer realistically hope to learn anything from table presence as opposed to analysis of bidding or cards played to date?