[gwnn]

That's a very convenient way of posting. Ask a question, then when you don't like the arguments, post just that (nobody came up with a good argument so far), don't post counterarguments. Maybe come back after a few days and repeat.

[pran]

mjj29, on Jun 23 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 03:13 AM, said:

I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance.

Bending down for a view through the aperture is not something you do incidentally.

As I said above, please do not confuse 'intently' with 'with intent' - they are not the same word!

I won't quote the OED again, look up thread, but "intently" means "with an intense manner", not "on purpose". Whether or not you deliberately did something is irrelevant to whether you did it intently.

I am not aware that I used the word "intently" nor that I implied what is meant by that word?

[wank]

gwnn, on Jun 23 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

That's a very convenient way of posting. Ask a question, then when you don't like the arguments, post just that (nobody came up with a good argument so far), don't post counterarguments. Maybe come back after a few days and repeat.

ah yes, not quite as convenient as your way of posting though which is to ignore the intent of posts and goto the dictionary to try and score some technical point due to the poster's lazy or mistaken (often because english isn't their first language) use of a word.

ironically, if you adopted the same approach with the wording of the laws, you'd be making a helpful contribution.

anyway, aside from being unconstructive, your post is plain wrong. yes, i asked a question, but almost all replies were to a different question, so it's understandable that i 'don't like the arguments'. also i made a counter-argument, both to the 1 reply to the question i asked, and to the many replies to the question i didn't ask.

[gwnn]

So using a dictionary is not OK, we should just accept that intently means fixedly? I am sorry I just don't understand what you mean. I don't see how looking up words from the laws in the dictionary is wrong. I do agree with your assessment that looking up words from internet forum posts to prove that they have been carelessly worded is rather foolish, but I do not think I am guilty of that, at least not in this thread. Please show me how I did that, perhaps I will see I was wrong, perhaps you will see you were wrong, or some combination of the two.

I did not try to score a technical point, I was trying to argue for why even a short glance can fall under the category of 'intently'. The word 'intently' is in the laws, and whether or not it can be applied to the action you described is quite crucial. Just saying that 'intently' is equivalent to 'fixedly' and is therefore not applicable is not good enough in my opinion.

[aguahombre]

wank, on Jun 23 2010, 06:39 AM, said:

i think anyone who doesn't have a quick look at the opps when they lead the jack from AJT towards dummy's Kxx is living in a parallel universe. 

This exact situation came to mind while reading all the verbage, here. One of the (agreed by all at the time) most ethical players some 40 years ago talked about this particular common occurence.

He had two points: first, that people glance at the wrong opponent and should be noticing what 4th hand to play was doing; second that the lead of the Jack should not be made with undue haste (which he thought was sleezy).

I think the Laws were not intended to prevent players from observing body language or other "tells" (of opponents only, of course). That is part of live bridge, a part that makes computerizing the game undesirable because it actually creates a different game.

Obviously peering under the screen, or absurd and intimidating stares are different.

[gordontd]

aguahombre, on Jun 23 2010, 03:12 PM, said:

that the lead of the Jack should not be made with undue haste (which he thought was sleezy).

Whether or not it's sleazy, I think it's ineffective. If you play too quickly, your opponent will react with surprise whatever they have in their hand.

[gnasher]

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

I am not aware that I used the word "intently" nor that I implied what is meant by that word?

So when you said "I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance", what was your point?

[blackshoe]

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently", but it seems to me that the one of the purposes of the screen is to prevent you from seeing the mannerisms of either player on the other side. I would not look favorably on a player who attempted to circumvent that purpose, whatever "intently" means.

[phil_20686]

There seems to me to be a clear difference between mannerisms, and hesitancy. Hesitancy is essentially a defensive error - a perfect defender would have considered all eventualities before the need to play a card arose. Those who think bridge is a purely intellectual sport think that mannerisms and other physical give-aways are different from the intellectual errors of hesitation.

However, I'm not really one of those people. I think its fine to draw inference from whether someone "looks confident" in the bidding, or when dummy hits, or even, in the absence of convincing information, to try to guess form declarers body language whether he is playing for a defensive error or a legitimate chance. (I lot of players put on a look of resigned indifference when playing a pseudo squeeze compared to intent card watching when making an actual squeeze, for example).

More ethically grey are the areas in which you try to temp the defence into giving something away. By playing unnaturally quickly perhaps, or by playing extremely slowly. Say i lead a J towards Kxx in dummy and lho plays and then i just wait "thinking", but really watching to see whether on of my opponents is reacting to the tension. I know several junior players who think it is fair practice to play quickly against the inexperienced, reasoning that the loss in accuracy in their own line is more than made up for by the increased number of mistakes made by the defence, largely because inexperienced players seldom manage to slow the tempo successfully, and feel under pressure to play quickly. Then again, I am not sure this is really any different than varying your pre-empt style vs less competent opposition. I know a number of players who will take more liberties in pre-empting vs weaker players because they feel the risk/reward ratio has been altered.

Anyway, thought I would stir the pot

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently", but it seems to me that the one of the purposes of the screen is to prevent you from seeing the mannerisms of either player on the other side. I would not look favorably on a player who attempted to circumvent that purpose, whatever "intently" means.

if this was true, why when "screens" were first introduced in the WC were they pyramids, so that you could see both opponents but not partner.

(I read that info in truscotts bridge on the great bridge scandal, it was incidental but i thought it was interesting - not sure how reliable it is).

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

I'm no expert on the use of screens, and I don't wish to enter this long (and rather silly, imo) debate on the meaning of "intently"

Whilst some of what has been said might be silly, I think the question of what is meant by Law L74C is quite a serious matter.

If it is illegal to intentionally look at your opponent's face in order to glean information, I know lots of players who routinely break the laws, and have no idea that they're doing anything wrong. That includes a number of well-respected players who have represented their country.

I'm sorry to hijack the thread like this, but it seems to me that until that question has been answered there isn't much point in considering what Law 74C means in the specific context of screens.

[blackshoe]

1. Gnasher: start a new thread.
2. Phil: I said I was no expert. I've never heard of this "pyramid" thing, so how the hell should I know the answer to that question?

[phil_20686]

Wikipedia quotes law 16 as:
Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

but that doesnt appear in the WBF copy on their website - is it possible the wording was changed when the new laws were issued in 2007? does anyone have a older copy? I have used the find function and no where in the laws is there any reference to the opponents mannerisms except that:
"Calls and plays should be made without undue emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste."

Also one isn't allowed to do anything for the "purpose of disconcerting" your opponents, but I'm not sure trying to extract information from them is the same thing . I think that basically means you shouldn't try to annoy them so that they will play worse.

[blackshoe]

Wikipedia is quoting the 1997 law. This was a general statement at the beginning of the law. What followed as 16A is now 16B, and the general statement has been replaced by what is now 16A.

Quote

Also one isn't allowed to do anything for the "purpose of disconcerting" your opponents, but I'm not sure trying to extract information from them is the same thing.

Depends on how you try to extract the information. Thumbscrews are out, for example.

If someone is staring intently at me, I'll generally be disconcerted, or annoyed, or both.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

1. Gnasher: start a new thread.

So that bluejak, mjj29, wank, mrdct and I can all restate the opinions we've already expressed? What a marvellous idea.

If you really think it important that the two subjects be discussed independently, feel free to separate the thread into two yourself.

[Pict]

I also know players who intentionally and intently stare at opponents.

I don't know why they do it: it is mildly strange.

Of course they would gain no advantage from any players on this forum (super whatevers that we all are).

Gnasher is right about the meaning of intent(ion), as quite distinct from intently, or intentionally, or even with extreme attention. I thought his French example was already unnecessary, but maybe required to convince people with limited English.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on Jun 23 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 07:27 PM, said:

1. Gnasher: start a new thread.

So that bluejak, mjj29, wank, mrdct and I can all restate the opinions we've already expressed? What a marvellous idea.

Glad you like it.

Quote

If you really think it important that the two subjects be discussed independently, feel free to separate the thread into two yourself.

I'll think about it.

[peachy]

phil_20686, on Jun 23 2010, 01:37 PM, said:

Wikipedia quotes law 16 as:

Please understand that Wikipedia articles can be written by anybody and its texts and articles can be edited, expanded, shortened, and changed by anybody. For bridge laws, go to a legitimate source.

[pran]

gnasher, on Jun 23 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

I am not aware that I used the word "intently" nor that I implied what is meant by that word?

So when you said "I would say that bending down indicates intent whether you stare or just take a quick glance", what was your point?

That it was an intentional (or deliberate) action of course.

Any such action for the apparent purpose of communicating to, or obtaining information from the other side of the screen defies the purpose of the screen and as such must be considered illegal.

[Vampyr]

What does it matter whether it is illegal or not? Has anyone ever tried this? I do not think that it is possible, from a seated position in your own chair, to get a glimpse of the face of the opponent on the other side of the screen.