In Bridge, Which Forms of Deception Are Ethical? Does This Include “Moodying?”

Question

Playing in a casual game of bridge, holding JTx of trumps, I "falsecarded" on the second trump lead with the J. Believing that he had drawn them, declarer stopped leading trumps. Later, I trumped one of his tricks with the T. Declarer protested, saying that I should have followed "in sequence." MY partner agreed with him. But dummy just said sagely, "My partner forgot to count trumps."

I wasn't "wrong" was I, even though I was "deceptive"? But I've been told that there are limits. For instance, is "moodying" allowed (act strong when weak, act weak when strong) even though this is a critical element of say, poker?

Answer 1

"Deception" is a weird concept in bridge. Just like in every game, there are forms that are ethical and forms that are not.

Falsecarding, as in your example, is perfectly fine. Your opponent failed to count trumps correctly, and paid the price. A similar, and perfectly valid strategy, is to play a high card instead of a low card when losing a trick as declarer to make the opponents think that you are now void in the suit, hoping that they will switch to a different suit.

"Moodying" is more of a gray area, and should probably be avoided. Granted, any information that your opponents take from your tells is at their own peril, but if your partner could use any information that your tell gives away to his and your benefit, then your opponents could rightfully claim to have been wronged.

Very broadly speaking, deception is OK as long as you are deceiving everyone at the table, partner included.

Answer 2

I don't see anything deceitful or unethical in your play. The important thing is that your play fooled your partner as much as your opponent(s) - obviously, in this case, as your partner was angry that you stepped outside of your system!

I believe that your opponent was perfectly entitled to ask your partner about your system - does your partner's play here usually imply that he is now out of trumps? And your partner should answer honestly. The only "unethical" behaviour would be if you had some kind of prearranged system where, let's say just for the sake of bizarre argument, you always drop your highest trump under the opponents' first round of drawing trumps. If you knew this to be the case but lied about it when questioned by your opponents, that simply wouldn't be on.

Bridge would be a much poorer game without deception! But it can never be a carefully planned deception between a partnership - it must always be purely improvised in the course of the game, without communication with one's partner.

Answer 3

Any deception by use of a bid or card played is legal. Any intentional (meaning "on purpose") deception by your tempo manner or countenance is not ethical. Bridge is not poker. It is best to be emotionally detached in your countenance and keep your tempo even. Do not pause to think unless there is something to think about. Do not show pleasure or displeasure at your partners or opponents plays or bids. This is very difficult to do. Try to control your tempo and emotions. If you lose control, at the very least your pauses and emotions should be genuine not contrived. All emotions, mannerisms, and variations in tempo and what they imply are unauthorized information to your partner. An ethical partner will not only ignore these but should bend over backwards to make it clear to opponents that it did not influence his play. He will generally choose an option not cued by such unauthorized information if he has reasonable choices between continuations.

A Bid that grossly misrepresents the strength or distribution of suits you hold is called a psych. While use of these bids are technically legal and they do occasionally happen, psychs are strongly discouraged. This is because the use of such bids usually create a pattern which is more familiar to your partner than your opponents creating a sort of secret agreement. All agreements should be available to your opponents and it is not ethical to play systems your opponents do not understand without full disclosure.