False Carding is an Art, Not a Routine

I am often asked the basic question “Is it correct to false card?” Here is the answer: “It depends!” How’s that for a lawyer’s answer?

There are three categories of false carders: (i)Those "smarmy" players who think that their partner is snoozing anyway, so they never give you an honest card (ii) those that can’t be bothered and (iii) those with angelic faces that pick and choose their spots; false carding when it will be more confusing to declarer than partner. Advanced Bridge players should be striving to fall into the last category. False carding is all about deception, the art of illusion and it is one of the sneaky things you will never get a director call on as long as you do it in tempo!! You can deceive declarer by the order in which you play your cards as long as you don’t pair it up with undue hesitation.

If you are in category (i) you are undoubtedly doing more harm than good and often end up with egg on your face looking like a complete jerk. Remember those moments of truth when you wanted to slide under the table? What’s worse, you are not effective since eventually everyone will know your routine and totally disregard the order in which cards seemingly float out of your hand. What may be worse, unless you have a partner who pays no attention at all (a match made in heaven for my money), he won’t be your partner for long.

If you are category (ii), it is sort of like “physician do no harm.” If you are blessed with an analytical partner, at least you have not misinformed him and he may have a good chance of figuring it out if “Mr. Upside Down” doesn’t confuse him.

The category (iii) player is the one who is really dangerous. He not only stays in tempo and is a complete stoic, but he also very cleverly plans the ruse in advance, plants the bait and springs the trap. He also employs these scams only infrequently, realizing that it is not a scam if you have not previously established the patina of believability.

False carding is not only about misleading declarer about what specific high cards you may hold, but also about how many cards you hold in any particular suit. People have been playing the Jack from JT doubleton since Hoyle explained Whist (i.e. 1742). More effective, however, is to mislead declarer as to the number of cards you hold in a suit. This has an odd twist to it. The better player declarer is, the more he will be susceptible to deceptive count signals or even thinly veiled suit preference indicators. Let’s face it, if declarer is totally ignoring you, you can do everything but pass cards under the table. If declarer is watching your every move and card, then he is easier prey since in his mind every card tells a story and holds the solution to the hand.

It is seldom worth false carding if you are confusing both declarer and your partner. The best false card situations are those where you create doubt in the mind of declarer that cannot injure partner. An example of that might be where declarer has a tenace on the board and an opportunity in another suit that would enable him to avoid the finesse by taking an alternate risk. You can usually tell by the way declarer is playing the hand whether he holds the fitting card for the tenace. Even though the finesse card may be onside with partner, that is not obvious to declarer who is still on the horns of a dilemma.

The standard advice to declarer when uncertain about choices, is to play on other suits to see what hints you can uncover. This may provide a defender with an opportunity to make a discard (always risk with this strategy). If you can convince declarer that you have the key card offside, you have given him a chance to go wrong. Now is the time to discard the ten in the problem suit. If you have real respect for declarer, play a seven, maybe he will not smell out your plan. These cat and mouse games can be really stimulating and relieve the boredom of just pitching cards. What is better than intrigue?

I asked Eddie Kantar about false signals and discards. He told me that he does so vigorously if he is convinced he can’t hurt partner. He volunteered that he most often engages in it later in the hand when there is less chance of damage to partner. He also noted that if the bidding and/or play reveals that partner is dead broke, all avenues of deception are open, since partners analysis is, in large measure, unimportant.

When I asked Karen Walker about this same issue she told me a cute story. In an early part of her bridge career she was playing in a big pairs game with many expert players. Two players, who made no effort to disguise their apparent expertise, made their way to her table. Karen, perhaps duly awed by these bridge bullies, found herself declaring a game contract. The hand was one perhaps like the one I described above where there was more than one possible solution to making the contract. While engaged in the information gathering process she noted that a somewhat significant card flew out of East’s hand. She decided it had to be a signal, put that information into her internal computer and solved the hand.

At the conclusion of the hand, there were no compliments, but West did upbraid his partner loudly for signaling and giving away the hand. West’s best defense was “She is only a young girl, how did I known she was paying attention!” That was the final straw for West, he threw his cards at East and walked away. Aw, them were the days! Ashtrays, alcohol. abuse and attitude were the four big A’s. Big time bridge in those days was not for sissies!