[mycroft]

Advice from somewhere (I believe John Probst) was with HA8, call for "top heart" or "heart eight-spot".

It works. But then again, I do not appreciate the Mumble Coup. In one person's case in particular, hands he plays take 2 minutes longer against me, because I refuse to play as his RHO until dummy has pulled the card she thinks he called for. So that's one game I particularly attempt to avoid.

[lmilne]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Nov 3 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word).

Now we have to be judges of the eyesight of the opponents to be ethical?

What do you think of the example I gave? It could also catch someone with good hearing who isn't paying very close attention.

In most situations, my general thinking is that you should 'let the cards play' i.e. doing anything to unnerve your opponents outside the play of the cards would be unethical.
That would obviously allow for calling for the top card from QJT9 or the bottom card depending on whether you wish RHO to cover, but would forbid calling for "the top heart" instead of simply "top" or "<name of card>", with the intention of decieving RHO into thinking the card will hold the trick.

With the claiming example (should I play out the hand to fatigue my opponents over a long match - defence is hard work!) I think there is a Law which covers this, simply stating that when you can claim, you must claim. At least, one of my partners has pulled this out of the bag vs tough opponents who had no scruples in not claiming over a long match, simply asking them to claim the first time and calling the director (and time monitor if available) the second time.

[pooltuna]

lmilne, on Nov 12 2009, 01:21 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Nov 3 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 12:25 PM, said:

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word).

Now we have to be judges of the eyesight of the opponents to be ethical?

What do you think of the example I gave? It could also catch someone with good hearing who isn't paying very close attention.

In most situations, my general thinking is that you should 'let the cards play' i.e. doing anything to unnerve your opponents outside the play of the cards would be unethical.
That would obviously allow for calling for the top card from QJT9 or the bottom card depending on whether you wish RHO to cover, but would forbid calling for "the top heart" instead of simply "top" or "<name of card>", with the intention of decieving RHO into thinking the card will hold the trick.

With the claiming example (should I play out the hand to fatigue my opponents over a long match - defence is hard work!) I think there is a Law which covers this, simply stating that when you can claim, you must claim. At least, one of my partners has pulled this out of the bag vs tough opponents who had no scruples in not claiming over a long match, simply asking them to claim the first time and calling the director (and time monitor if available) the second time.

Claiming when you have the rest of the tricks is clear as the opponents can prove (at some point) you knew you had the rest and didn't claim. However if you retain one loser you can play out to the end claiming you were playing for a defensive discarding error. Of course the opponents can defeat this by stating "I am holding X card (the one that takes the last trick) until the end" unless prevented by laws from creating UI for his partner.

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Nov 12 2009, 09:09 AM, said:

Claiming when you have the rest of the tricks is clear as the opponents can prove (at some point) you knew you had the rest and didn't claim. However if you retain one loser you can play out to the end claiming you were playing for a defensive discarding error. Of course the opponents can defeat this by stating "I am holding X card (the one that takes the last trick) until the end" unless prevented by laws from creating UI for his partner.

I don't know any law that prevents a defender from claiming (what he is doing when he says "I am holding this card to the end") because it would give UI to his partner.

[blackshoe]

lmilne, on Nov 12 2009, 01:21 AM, said:

With the claiming example (should I play out the hand to fatigue my opponents over a long match - defence is hard work!) I think there is a Law which covers this, simply stating that when you can claim, you must claim.  At least, one of my partners has pulled this out of the bag vs tough opponents who had no scruples in not claiming over a long match, simply asking them to claim the first time and calling the director (and time monitor if available) the second time.

I suspect the law to which this refers is

Law 74B4 said:

As a matter of courtesy, a player should refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

The wording of this law indicates a couple of things: first, it's an infraction to prolong play unnecessarily for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. It's not an infraction if that's not your purpose. Second, even if you do it in order to disconcert your opponent, you will rarely draw a penalty (cf. the meaning of "should" in the laws). Third, the law does not specify any rectification for this infraction. Fourth, the law does not say "if you can claim you must claim", it says that you are not permitted to not claim for the purpose stated in the law, ie, to disconcert an opponent. As that ("can I not claim in order to disconcert (or fatigue) my opponents in a long match?") was the original question, however, the answer must be "no".

jdonn said:

I don't know any law that prevents a defender from claiming (what he is doing when he says "I am holding this card to the end") because it would give UI to his partner.

There isn't one. In general, the giving of UI to partner is not an infraction. It's his use of UI that may be an infraction. I don't see much opportunity for partner to use UI here, unless you tell him early in the play which particular card you plan to keep.