[gwnn]

Sometimes in defence I draw a wrong conclusion based on declarer's inferior line (I am sure a significant number of times my reasoning is unsound of course - this is part of the reason I want to explain it as clearly as possible!) and give up a few tricks. What should I tell my p if he asks me why I played that way? In general I just say "well I thought declarer can't have X because he would have done Y with that" but I just realised that there is a thin line between judging the soundness of my premises and judging our opponent's abilities. Is there an easy, tactful way of doing this? I know that we should just forget about the hands after the round and discuss them after the session but that's not really feasible (no hand records, lots of noise/drinks). Discussing it away from the table is sometimes also difficult due to the geometry of the playing area.

[Endymion77]

I usually just say "sorry, I got distracted for a moment, my fault"

[Zelandakh]

My partner shakes her head at me for this all the time - tells me I should not trust the opponents and compares it with the Unlucky Expert. The truth is that at club level, opponents do all sorts of weird and inferior things. Sometimes trusting them to be half sane is the only clue you have though and then they get you. I find it hard to believe that any half-decent player would find this difficult to understand after spending any time playing bridge at this level.

And no hand records? That is pretty poor these days imo. A solution might be to switch to a club where they do have hand records and not return until they offer them.

There was an excellent series of articles in the German (DBV) bridge magazine a few months back that included a section on reading the opponents' intentions, that is answering the question in the title. Perhaps you can get a hold of that in Holland too. I think they were a translation from English (a couple of clunky translations gave me this impression at least) so the articles are probably available elsewhere too.

[gwnn]

So you are saying that I should stop making these inferences altogether? I am probably overdoing it but ceasing completely seems extreme. My opps are not that weak. Sometimes I misjudge their level but sometimes I miss something that makes the seemingly irrational line actually reasonable or best. If I want to eliminate the second kind of mistake, asking partner what he thinks about my reasoning is helpful.

[cherdano]

I don't think you can discuss wrong inferences from the opponent's brain dumb line tactfully at the table, so I would just say "it seemed a good idea at the time" or s.th. like that. Just try to remember the hand and then ask someone (your partner, or ideally a strong player who also knows your opponents) about it later.

[CamHenry]

I tend to go with "I misread declarer's hand". That discloses the reason for your play, but doesn't say why you came up with that view - it could be your logic or declarer's play that was at fault.

[kenberg]

It is probably useful for partner to know whether you fell asleep, or made a reasonable error, or made a reasonable inference. on the play that was wrong because declarer turned out to have what you thought impossible.

I suppose it is within bounds to say "I was playing for declarer to hold blah blah blah". If you avoid saying things such as "I never thought the idiot would play it the way he did with his actual holding" you should be ok, at least if partner can be relied on to be equally discreet.

[Zelandakh]

gwnn, on 2013-September-18, 05:28, said:

So you are saying that I should stop making these inferences altogether?

No, I think it is good practise to do this and switching off from these things is one of the reasons why playing against weaker players can serious hurt your game whe you switch up. Just that you and your partner should expect that many such inferences are going to be false in a club level game. That said, when someone does something really strange, they will almost always have some "good" reason for it. Working out what that might be, especially when the logic does not hold water, is often difficult but also highly rewarding.

On the other hand, I usually spend at least as long on analysing the hands from a club session afterwards as was spent playing them. Hand records are essential for that and it does mean that some of these conversations can be put off until later. I have been known to take partner out of the room and say something along the lines of: "Sorry, I didn't think (s)he could possibly play the hand that badly" for particularly egregious cases, if only to get the frustration out of my system.

[gwnn]

OK, so you agree I shouldn't switch them off completely. So when I do make one of these inferences and I am wrong (because I did not switch it off or because one of the parameters was wrong), what should I tell partner if he asks?

[barmar]

it's not just declarers who fool you like this. Last night I was declaring a contract, and LHO led the 9 from KJ9 in the major suit that I'd opened (but the contract was in my second suit). This was into my AQTxx. Later, when RHO returned the suit, I naturally finessed the Q and was amazed to lose to the K.

She was an admitted novice, and probably totally forgot that I'd bid the suit. I merely mentioned that that was an "unusual" lead.

[Zelandakh]

"I played you for the X because if declarer had had it they could have just done Y, which even the waiter could have seen."
"A normal human being would have just done Y with that hand."
"I had to choose between playing you for X for for Z. It's a pure guess but declarer's line of play suggested they held Z."
"We need to play against better opponents. When they misplay the hand that badly it is impossible to make sensible judgements about what is going on."

Quite frankly, if you just explain your line of reasoning I find it hard to believe that a half-decent player would not understand. After all, they are playing against the same bad opponents too. Of course, your partner might be as bad as the pack, in which case there is not really much you can do to convince them that the "obvious" play was not correct.

It is the same when you do something technical correct like establishing a side suit before drawing trumps and concede the setting ruff on an unlikely split. Or going for a 75% chance of an overtrick in a room 3NT contract at Pairs and going down with 9 tops. Good players understand, most bad players probably never will. If they are bad but willing to learn, they might actually gain something from your line of reasoning when it was correct, so it is worth giving it. Certainly better to explain the truth here than try to come up with some excuse (and if the truth is that the opps are amoeba then so be it).

[gwnn]

Well, maybe my opening post was unclear. My partner is better than I am in cardplay. I trust most of his advice. If he criticises my defence after the hand, I give my idea to him not to shut him up or to win an argument but to hopefully learn something new. I am not worried about partner not understanding my reasoning, I am much more worried about the opps thinking that I'm calling them irrational/bad/clueless. That's what my question was about, really.

[barmar]

If you feel the need to say anything while the opponents are still at the table, try to couch it in a euphemism. Say something like "Declarer's play confused me", or "he made an interesting switch".

if you can't think of any way to describe it that wouldn't be insulting to declarer, then just hold your tongue until they're gone.

[Fluffy]

yell and berate opponent, this is what I see most frequently

[CSGibson]

tell your partner that you misread the hand, and want to talk to him about it later. Jot down what you are thinking in your scoresheet for easier recollection later. If your club allows it, actually take the board after it is finished and go over the hand after the session at the club.

[gnasher]

"Sorry, I didn't think that could be the layout" should be enough of a hint for partner whilst being sufficiently ambiguous not to offend anyone.

[barmar]

And if your partner is as good as you think he is, he should also see how declarer's play was illogical and resulted in wrong inferences, so you shouldn't really need to say anything.