[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-04, 15:14, said:

None of this is what involuntary means. You could avoid making facial expressions if you wanted. You can also choose to make them at will.

Then you and I have different understandings of "involuntary". If you step on a tack and say "ouch", I think that's involuntary. Yes, you could avoid it if you wanted (you'd probably have to know ahead of time that you're about to step on the tack), and you can also say "ouch" when you haven't actually been hurt. But these other voluntary, related actions don't make the original one voluntary.

It's like breathing. You can hold your breath (for a short while), and you can also "take a breath" when the doctor tells you. But ordinary breathing is involuntary, much like automatic facial reactions.

There was a show on US TV a couple of years ago called "Lie to Me", about a researcher (based on an actual person) who had studied lying and other emotions, and discovered a number of subtle, involuntary clues in body language that almost always accompany them. People also recognize many of these clues subconsciously. If you have a "hunch" that someone is lying, it's likely that something like this is involved.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2013-March-05, 09:54, said:

If you have a "hunch" that someone is lying, it's likely that something like this is involved.

There has been quite a bit of research into this. The truth is that we are very bad at detecting whether someone is lying, very bad indeed. Regardless of whether someone is a teacher, a policeman, or a welder. There are certain groups who were found to be extremely good though, such as agents (spies). Then they researched why they were good and it turns out they were looking for what are called micro-gestures. If you have not studied micro-gestures the chance are that your "hunch" will be no better than pure chance. On the other hand, if you have then you generally do not need to hunch.

It makes you wonder if top bridge players have started studying these things yet to improve their table feel (perhaps Justin knows). It seems to me inconceivable that they are not used by pretty much every top poker player in the world when looking for tells.

[CamHenry]

Vampyr, on 2013-March-04, 11:51, said:

It does to me, if the player has been told he could not change his call, and states that he wishes he could. What purpose could this serve than to let partner know you had a different action in mind?

You are confusing effect and purpose. Let's have another example: partner opens 1NT (15-17) and I hold a 3-3-3-4 10-count. I bid 3NT with the purpose of making somewhere between 0 and 2 overtricks. The effect is that oppo take the first five tricks in our unstopped suit.

Let's have another example. RHO deals and opens 2♠ Lucas, showing ♠ and a minor; I hold xxx/AKxxx/AKx/Ax. Various calls look attractive, and I take a while to decide between 3♥ and double. My purpose was to make the best call on my hand; the effect was to give partner UI that I had a non-trivial decision.

UI can be generated without any unethical intentions. UI can not ethically (or legally) be used to guide a decision.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-01, 17:25, said:

Whatever their reasons, players frequently disobey this law. I wish they wouldn't. I wish the Drafting Subcomittee's response in 2004 or so to my pointing out that this law in 1997 said "must call the director" had not been to water it down to "should". But it is what it is.

I am not sure they were wrong. Let us look at the effect.

If you "must" call the TD, then you are wrong not to call the TD. If you don't, you are likely to be penalised. Furthermore, if your failure to call the TD damages you there is no reason why you should receive redress.

If you "should" call the TD, then you are wrong not to call the TD. If you don't, you are not very likely to be penalised. However, if your failure to call the TD damages you there is no reason why you should receive redress.

See the point? "should" does not mean you don't need to to do it, just that you are less likely to be penalised - and that's the correct way.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2013-April-19, 09:44, said:

See the point? "should" does not mean you don't need to to do it, just that you are less likely to be penalised - and that's the correct way.

Of course. I knew that going in. My point is that I'm not so sure it is the correct way. However, the WBFLC has decreed that it is, so my opinion doesn't matter. I do think if people got PPs for failing to call the director to handle a problem there'd be a lot less inter player acrimony at the table. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

In the ACBL, at least at club level and in my geographical area, there is a great reluctance to give PPs for any reason, whatever the law says. This is, IMO, definitely not the correct way.

OTOH, maybe all the "musts" in the law should be changed to "should".