[Badmonster]

I really only play online. For those of you who play live, do these things really exist in online bridge? Are they the same? If not how do they differ?

[mike777]

Badmonster, on Jul 21 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

I really only play online. For those of you who play live, do these things really exist in online bridge? Are they the same? If not how do they differ?

Keep in mind from school, 90% of communication is not the spoken word.

In other words the fact that the opp bid something is only 10% of what is communicated. The other 90% is body language, tone, etc, etc.

Let's use a simple example, someone asks you to marry them. The words are 10% of the communication, everything else they do when asking you is the other 90%. Pay attention .

Or the answer is 10%, everything else in their response matters much more.

Same in bridge.

[Badmonster]

So...
I'm only getting 10%?
And don't bidding boxes cut down a lot of the stuff that could be communicated?

[Badmonster]

And does table feel exist at all at virtual tables?

[pbleighton]

Well, you can't see the faces or motions, and hesitations are totally unreliable...

I wouldn't worry about it.

Peter

[TimG]

mike777, on Jul 21 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

In other words the fact that the opp bid something is only 10% of what is communicated. The other 90% is body language, tone, etc, etc.

If this is true then every hand played face to face would include LOTS of unauthorized information. There is a lot of UI floating around, but I don't think it is anywhere near the 90% you suggest.

[mike777]

TimG, on Jul 21 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 21 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

In other words the fact that the opp bid something is only 10% of what is communicated. The other 90% is body language, tone, etc, etc.

If this is true then every hand played face to face would include LOTS of unauthorized information. There is a lot of UI floating around, but I don't think it is anywhere near the 90% you suggest.

I think the actual number is around 92%. This is nothing new, geez I learned about it over 30 years ago.

To repeat communication is less than 10% of the spoken word, the rest is tone, body language etc.

"Researches in communication suggest that many more feelings and intentions are sent and received nonverbally than verbally. Mehrabian and Wienerfollowing suggested that only 7% of message is sent through words, with remaining 93% sent nonverbal expressions...."

http://www.fhsu.edu/~zhrepic/Teaching/GenE.../nonverbcom.htm

[gwnn]

Mike, your claims are analogous to "all bike riders are on doping" claims, which are a form of light slander to their respective sports.

There are all kinds of pieces of information, but it's not 90% at a bridge table (people look at their own cards, don't have a tone of voice, et cetera) and players are obliged to ignore most of them. Not in a measure of "ought to" or "supposed to", but as obligatory as following suit.

[mike777]

Players are not obliged to ignore their opponents.
Players are not obliged to show their true feelings or emotions at the table. They are allowed to try and keep a "stone face"

Yes only 10% of what is communicated, at the bridge table, is via the spoken word.

Why is everyone finding this simple, old old fact so hard to believe. If you choose not to ok.

Please keep in mind what is being communicated may or may not be bridge related but it is being communicated but it can only help you to understand it.

Al Roth for one thought his winning was due more, or at least as important, to table presence and understanding nonverbal communication than anything else.


I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is saying cheat or break the rules.
I did say 90% of communication is not from the spoken word.
Table feel and presence is very important at the table.
If you get somehow get some of this online, all the better, maybe in the future online coming soon with sound and camera's etc?


Thats all.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 22 2007, 02:35 AM, said:

Players are not obliged to ignore their opponents.
Players are not obliged to show their true feelings or emotions at the table. They are allowed to try and keep a "stone face"

Yes only 10% of what is communicated, at the bridge table, is via the spoken word.

Why is everyone finding this simple, old old fact so hard to believe.  If you choose not to ok.

Please keep in mind what is being communicated may or may not be bridge related but it is being communicated but it can only help you to understand it.

Al Roth for one thought his winning was due more, or at least as important, to table presence  and understanding nonverbal communication than anything else.


I have no idea what you are talking about. No one is saying cheat or break the rules.
I did say 90% of communication is not from the spoken word.
Table feel and presence is very important at the table.
If you get somehow get some of this online, all the better, maybe in the future online coming soon with sound and camera's etc?


Thats all.

I think the main reason that people are disputing this "simple old fact" is that it is severely flawed on many levels.

The simplest way to point this out is ask how you're arriving at this measurement. (I suspect that you are simply pulling numbers out of your ass). Let's consider a fairly explicit example: We can model a bidding system as the number of bits of information that can be encoded in the channel. You are (essentially) claiming that the total amount of information that goes down this channel is 1/9th that conveyed by hitches, breaks in tempo, and the like.

Personally, I think that you are pretending to an unachievable level of precision, while, at the same time you're completely wrong at the general level.

Even if we restrict ourselves to questions of play and defense, your claim is laughable. Simply put, if the non-verbal communication is so completely dominating everything else, then we should be able to test this hypothesis.

Show me all the players who ALWAYS drop the a singleton King
Show me all the players who are able to guess a two way finesse 75% of the time
Show me all the players who never get a two way guess wrong on defense. (Or, at the very least, a making mistakes far less than random chance would indicate)

(BTW, I know the old story about "Who has the Queen?" / "Neither of them Do". If its true, this story is significant because it is the exception. Not the rule)

[mike777]

edited

Please leave me out of your Flame wars.


Here is a simple example. YOu may get a vibe that your opponent is thinking about something other than bridge. You may, repeat may wish to use this information in your play at the table. You may not. Perhaps you may use this information to induce a small error in concentration, perhaps not.

I am not talking about dropping a stiff offside 92% of the time or finding a queen 92% of the time, sigh. But you may or may not be able to find it more often than by mere chance, perhaps not. Perhaps, just perhaps those or some of those, who are able to understand nonverbal information given by the opp. will get better results.

I gave this cite before.



"Researches in communication suggest that many more feelings and intentions are sent and received nonverbally than verbally. Mehrabian and Wienerfollowing suggested that only 7% of message is sent through words, with remaining 93% sent nonverbal expressions...."

http://www.fhsu.edu/.../nonverbcom.htm

http://en.wikipedia....lbert_Mehrabian

In his studies, Mehrabian (1971) comes to two conclusions. Firstly, that there are basically three elements in any face-to-face communication:

"words,
tone of voice and
body language.
According to Mehrabian, these three elements account differently for our liking for the person who puts forward the message: words account for 7%, tone of voice accounts for 38%, and body language accounts for 55% of the liking. They are often abbreviated as the "3 Vs" for Verbal, Vocal & Visual."

[Robert]

Hi everyone

Great theory and I would trust it 100%.

Only, why doesn't playing with screens cause all(most?) of the players games to fall apart because they just lost what something like 90% of their communication.

I know players that use their voice and mannerisms to exchange information. They are cheating IMHO or are so bad that they need to be 'informed' about the rules of the game.

My bids mean what they mean and my voice or posture does not add information to my bids.

If you want to exchange non verbal information, lead a singleton and 'rearrange' your hand as soon as you have played the singleton. Some partners will take advantage of the 'non verbal' information and others will either get a new partner or have a stern talk with their current one.

Regards,
Robert

[Quantumcat]

A couple of times when I've had the choice of trying to drop or to finesse the trump suit and it was important, when it came time to play from dummy and the first opponent didn't play any interesting card, I've put down my own cards and just gazed at the other for the longest time, up to 30 seconds or a minute. If they don't have the queen, they start to get irritated after ten or twenty seconds, but if they do, they try really hard to feign nochalance, because they know exactly what you are wanting to find out.

I don't know if this is allowed, but nobody's complained about it yet! It works wonders. But you could never do this online

[gwnn]

Mike,

Of course on a first date, when two people are trying to get to know the other, there are loads of nonverbal info - biting of lips, subtle touches, eye contact, et cetera. The 90% figure (anyhoo, 90% of what? which two NUMERICAL entities are we comparing? some sort of sentimental bandwidths?)could obviously be true in this case.

BUT to say that the INFORMATION you acquire at the bridge table is 90% due to non-bridge elements, which you seem to imply is VERY hilarious.

Consider this: RHO opens a Precision 1♠ slowly.

why did he bid that slow?
-he is a little short for 11 hcp
-he was considering a weak NT
-he is a little thick for it, but dislikes 1♣ auctions.

But already you know that unless he was psyching, he has 5 or more spades, roughly 11 to 15 hcp in his hand. What percentage of that was due to table feel and what percentage was it by bridge elements and reasonable logical inferences/bridge disclosure?

You could have read the end of the wikipedia article, where it says

This "7%-38%-55% Rule" has been overly interpreted in such way, that some people claim that in any communication situation, the meaning of a message was being transported mostly by non-verbal cues, not by the meaning of words. This generalization, from the initially very specific conditions in his experiments, is the basic mistake around "Mehrabian's rule", and on his webpage the scientist clearly states this:

(...) Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking: Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable. Also see references 286 and 305 in Silent Messages -- these are the original sources of my findings. (...) [quote from http://www.kaaj.com/psych/smorder.html]

Now, MAYBE the magnitude of your sympathetic feelings to a certain opponent does depend 10% on bridge info and 90% on non-bridge info (although I seem to dislike opps who rob me those juicy tops), but it is really dubious to claim that LOGICAL INFERENCES at the bridge table depend 90% on "tone of voice" and "body language" and what not.

[skjaeran]

Quantumcat, on Jul 22 2007, 07:15 AM, said:

A couple of times when I've had the choice of trying to drop or to finesse the trump suit and it was important, when it came time to play from dummy and the first opponent didn't play any interesting card, I've put down my own cards and just gazed at the other for the longest time, up to 30 seconds or a minute. If they don't have the queen, they start to get irritated after ten or twenty seconds, but if they do, they try really hard to feign nochalance, because they know exactly what you are wanting to find out.

I don't know if this is allowed, but nobody's complained about it yet! It works wonders. But you could never do this online

This is illegal.

Law 74C:

Quote

The following are considered violations of procedure: 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play , or at another player’s hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent’s card)

Relevant part highlighted by me.

[mike777]

[quote name='gwnn' date='Jul 22 2007, 12:50 AM'] Mike,

Of course on a first date, when two people are trying to get to know the other, there are loads of nonverbal info - biting of lips, subtle touches, eye contact, et cetera. The 90% figure (anyhoo, 90% of what? which two NUMERICAL entities are we comparing? some sort of sentimental bandwidths?)could obviously be true in this case.

BUT to say that the INFORMATION you acquire at the bridge table is 90% due to non-bridge elements, which you seem to imply is VERY hilarious.

Consider this: RHO opens a Precision 1[sp] slowly.

why did he bid that slow?
-he is a little short for 11 hcp
-he was considering a weak NT
-he is a little thick for it, but dislikes 1[cl] auctions.

But already you know that unless he was psyching, he has 5 or more spades, roughly 11 to 15 hcp in his hand. What percentage of that was due to table feel and what percentage was it by bridge elements and reasonable logical inferences/bridge disclosure?

You could have read the end of the wikipedia article, where it says

This "7%-38%-55% Rule" has been overly interpreted in such way, that some people claim that in any communication situation, the meaning of a message was being transported mostly by non-verbal cues, not by the meaning of words. This generalization, from the initially very specific conditions in his experiments, is the basic mistake around "Mehrabian's rule", and on his webpage the scientist clearly states this:

    (...) Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking: Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable. Also see references 286 and 305 in Silent Messages -- these are the original sources of my findings. (...) [quote from [url="http://www.kaaj.com/psych/smorder.html"]http://www.kaaj.com/psych/smorder.html[/url]]

Now, MAYBE the magnitude of your sympathetic feelings to a certain opponent does depend 10% on bridge info and 90% on non-bridge info (although I seem to dislike opps who rob me those juicy tops), but it is really dubious to claim that LOGICAL INFERENCES at the bridge table depend 90% on "tone of voice" and "body language" and what not. [/quote]
I never made any of the claims you say I did. *sigh*

I am not saying you or anyone gets 90% of the bridge information from nonverbal sources ok. I am not saying you get anywhere close to this.

I am saying the opp are sending a huge amount of information not through their words. If I understand the studies this information may be close to 66% or 90%. I am not saying you or I understand how to read this information.

Simple example opp bid 1s=4s=p? Ok they send some important information with their words, the study seems to say they are sending just as much if not more nonverbally.

The bids are important information, I am not saying they are not. If I understand the studies say the opp are sending very valuable information, not through their words.

I am not saying we have the ability to understand most of this information, I am saying Al Roth and Zia say they get important valuable information at crucial times through body lang. and tone etc.

I never claimed you or me are getting 90% or anything close to our useful information nonverbally, ok? Just read what I do say, thanks.

Please keep in mind I am talking about total information. Much of this information may only indirectly help you at bridge. The are upset, they are confused, they are distracted, etc....I am not saying they are telling you where the Queen is 92% of the time. I am not saying you or I, can understand and read this information, yet.

In any event if you disagree, cool, I am going to stop posting on this thread.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Jul 22 2007, 07:50 AM, said:

[....] (anyhoo, 90% of what? which two NUMERICAL entities are we comparing? some sort of sentimental bandwidths?)could obviously be true in this case.

BUT to say that the INFORMATION you acquire at the bridge table is 90% due to non-bridge elements, which you seem to imply is VERY hilarious.

Consider this: RHO opens a Precision 1♠ slowly.

why did he bid that slow?
-he is a little short for 11 hcp
-he was considering a weak NT
-he is a little thick for it, but dislikes 1♣ auctions.

But already you know that unless he was psyching, he has 5 or more spades, roughly 11 to 15 hcp in his hand. What percentage of that was due to table feel and what percentage was it by bridge elements and reasonable logical inferences/bridge disclosure?

You could have read the end of the wikipedia article, where it says
[......]    (...) Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking: Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable.

Very well put, Csaba. So if someone falls in love with their RHO it may be 90% due to the way they opened 1♠, but if they chose to finese a queen over RHO it is probably more related to the fact that they opened 1♠.

I really don't know how important table precense is. Many players, including some profillic authors, claim that it is extremely important. I don't dismiss such claims but I'm skeptical. We saw in another thread how the "well-known" fact of possitive correlation between holding in opp's suit and expected tolerance for your suit by partner turned out to be an urban legend. And that was even a much simpler problem than what we are discussing here. I also found two urban legends of the statistical kind presented as "facts" by Simons in "Why you lose at bridge", by many considered the best book ever written about bridge psychology.

Mike, I'm sorry if you are getting misunderstood by other posters. I do think that when you say that 92% of conveyed information is non-verbal it is natural to read it as if you mean that 92% of received information is also non-verbal. Maybe not necesarily that 92% of higher-level inference is based on non-verbal signals or even that 92% of actions are motivated by non-verbal signals. You'd better be specific: as Csaba asks: 92% of what? And more importantly, how far does the 92% reach? To the ears and eyes of opps? To their actions? Or somewhere in between? Because if you don't supply those crucial details, people will try to read them between the lines, and may then read something else than you intended to say.

[foo]

TimG, on Jul 21 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 21 2007, 04:01 PM, said:

In other words the fact that the opp bid something is only 10% of what is communicated. The other 90% is body language, tone, etc, etc.

If this is true then every hand played face to face would include LOTS of unauthorized information. There is a lot of UI floating around, but I don't think it is anywhere near the 90% you suggest.

It's only UI if =partner= is who we take advantage of.

The laws are explicit that we are allowed to "read" the opponents if we wish, but that we do so at our peril. If we are wrong, we have no protection.
However, the opponents are not supposed to knowingly try and create a false impression. Such "coffee housing" and the like =are= illegal.

So if one of the opponents counts their HCP under their breath but we can lip read, it is completely Authorized Information.

OTOH, if said opponent does it on purpose and distorts their hands values, they are coffeehousing (same as if they "go into the tank" on defense when they can follow suit with a stiff in said suit.).

Expert rubber bridge players will tell you that they "read" the table fairly accurately 9/10 or more of the time.
To the point where they usually know who has the best hand at the table and often even what that person's basic hand shape is =before the auction starts=.

Simply put, there is enough statistical evidence from expert level rubber bridge games to suggest that such players make what should be 1/2 decisions far more accurately than that. The dropping of the offside Stiff K with the A is called the Rabbi's Rule for =exactly= that reason. There was a rabbi who pulled this off at rubber bridge far more often than statistics says he should.

I've even seen players who are willing to bid their cards =without= looking at them. They feel they can learn everything they need to know most of the time by reading the opponents and listening to their calls. (This form of Bridge is called "No Peek" and is often considered illegal.)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

a simple example.

Assume you are playing with a long time partner.
Non verbal communication will tell you, that he is
alert or tired or whatever.
An this information is AI, that you may decide to use,
however this usage looks like.
Buy him a drink, step up against opponents, who are
irritating, ...
The same is true as opponents, if you believe one of
you oppoenents is not 100% alert you can try to create
difficult problems for him.

With kind regards
Marlowe