Laws/Ethics Question

[awm]

Suppose partner hesitates in an auction. What should I now do? Suppose that it's quite clear to me what I would've bid without the hesitation, but I also know that some people may look at things differently. To give an example:

 

1♥-Pass-2♥....

 

Suppose I'm a really aggressive pre-balancer, and I know that given my cards, I would always bid in this auction without UI. However, partner hesitated over 1♥, which seems to make balancing more favorable. I know that there are some players of my general skill level who would not bid with my hand -- I realize I'm pretty aggressive in this auction and that this hand which is a clear bid to me may not be a clear bid for these other players. So what should I do?

 

Also, if a committee has to decide this case, should it matter if they know something about my general bidding tendencies (i.e. that I'm an extremely aggressive pre-balancer and would surely bid without the UI) or is that irrelevent to their decision?

[hotShot]

Your partner hesitated and than passed. The only logical reason would be, that he considered bidding. So he is likely to have something. But you don't know what bid he was thinking about. He could have considered a weak jump or a dbl with a (sub)minimum hand.

This makes bidding from your side more attractive, but it does not suggest any suit.

 

So in this case you only need to consider: Is it reasonable to pass with my hand?

I you think a significant amount of player will pass with your hand, than you should pass.

 

 

None of your options is correct!

 

Among the reasonable bids available, you should take one that is not ( least) suggested by the UI. It is even possible to win a top by that!

[hrothgar]

The answer here will depend enormously on the extent to which you are able to document your agreements.

 

Players are allowed to use whatever bidding methods that they want (obviouly subject to local regulatory restrictions). As I understand matters, the concept of a "logical alternative" is evaluated within the context of a players own choice of bidding methods.

 

Here's a ridiculous example:

 

Partner opens a strong club

I bid 1♠ showing 5+ Spades and game forcing values

Parter bids a slow 1NT.

 

Pass isn't ever going a logicial alternative for me. In a similar fashion, if your methods are based on very aggressive pre-balancing this can also impact the concept of what constitutes a logical alternative.

 

Here's where things get complicated. TDs and Appeals committees will often disregard "self serving" testimony. If you can't document your claims that you are playing an aggressive pre-balancing structure there's a good chance that the TD won't take you at your word.

[david_c]

Agree with hrothgar.

 

Whether something is considered a LA depends on what other people in your position would do. The people that the TD would consider are those with the same level of experience, playing the same system and the same style. So if your style is to pre-balance aggresively, the TD (or AC) will take this into account. But there has to be some clear evidence of this, for example some mention on the convention card. If a player just says "I'd always bid with this hand" then this is unlikely to influence the TD even though it may happen to be true.

[Fluffy]

Adam you make it very clear you are fully sure you would bid without the hessitation, if that is the case then bid it.

 

As I said before my problem is unless I have though of this precise sequence before LHO had bid 1♥ (or 2 seconds later when my partner hessitated) I would be biased deceiving myself making me think that my bid is more clear than it is really.

 

this things are limit, and I don't think there is a simple answer. And also wich is worse, if you are unable to judge yourself, how can we expect director or a comitee would be able to do it better?

[pclayton]

I'd have a very difficult time convincing the committee in my partnership of a pre-balance after a tank.

 

We choose not to pre-balance (because we think its losing bridge - I've discussed this in other threads), and we also balance with hands in the passout that many of you would pass.

 

For instance: Qxx, xxx, AKxx, Qxx and Qxx, xxxx, AKxx, Qx are both auto doubles for us in the passout.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry for saying the same thing twice...this time I'll be more technical.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/clubs...Decisions04.pdf

 

"If the director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized information takes action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore the information..." (my emphasis).

 

The objective here should be to keep the normal bidding and play of the board, not to win the board in committee. You should not change your bidding methods- if you feel you have two choices, choose the one that the UI did not suggest, but under no circumstances should you make a bid because the committee is more likely to let it stand. That's a very dangerous and slipperly slope, and can lead to all sorts of more serious problems.

 

For example, suppose you know your partner hesitated, and your partner knows that he hesitated, but your opponents don't know your tempo so they don't realize that there's been a hesitation. Now when you X, partner knows that pass wasn't an LA, but the opponents don't. Now not only does your partner have a bidding advantage, he has a play advantage, if they end up buying the contract. This can put impossible pressure on your partner. Furthermore, if you deviate from your normal methods in bending over backwards, explanations become wrong, more misunderstandings can occur....

 

When you have a decision to make, make the decision that can't have been caused by an uncouscious read of partner's mannerisms. Other than that, just follow the rules as quoted above. This method won't win you appeals, but it will keep the rules normal. It's also required by the Laws.

[Sancho]

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/clubs...Decisions04.pdf

 

"If the director is called before the recipient of the unauthorized information takes action, he should instruct the recipient to ignore the information..."  (my emphasis).

 

I am really surprised that the ACBL would publish such a statement because it contradicts L16. OK, I'll concede that "Duplicate Decisions" is apparently written for less experienced directors, and for those (and inxperienced players, for that matter) telling the player in question to just ignore any UI is a somewhat practical, easy-to-understand approach. But that does not make it right.

 

It is a player's duty under L16 actively not to choose from logical alternatives one that could demontrably have been suggested by the UI. The laws say that he may not choose such an alternative (no matter what he would have done without UI), and "may not" is the second-strongest wording the laws provide (just short of "must not"). Thus, I did not vote in this thread's poll, as neither option is correct.

 

I find it extremely surprising that there is such a lot of discussion over this point here and in the TD forum. And just in case anybody does not believe me over what the ACBL says in "Duplicate Decisions" :) , I will quote my own zonal authority, the European Bridge League, more spefically their last exam for aspiring international directors. Source:

http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/courses.html

 

-> 7th TD course -> Starting test -> question 8:

"In a competitive auction North on call hesitates long and passes. The TD is called.

Explaining how to continue he should tell South to ignore the hesitation and to make

the call he would have made without that hesitation. True/False"

 

Starting test answers, question 8:

"False. L16."

[awm]

I think there are two major questions to be asked:

 

1. Given my general style/approach, which alternatives would I have considered without the UI?

 

2. If this hand were given to a number of players of my general skill level without the UI, which alternatives would receive a reasonable number of votes?

 

My point is that the answers to these questions need not be the same. If I'm a very aggressive pre-balancer, there could easily be hands where I wouldn't even consider passing over 1♥-P-2♥ but where, nonetheless, a substantial number of players of comparable skill would vote to pass.

 

In any case, it seems clear that if the first question includes several alternatives and one of them is particularly suggested by the UI, then I should not make that bid. The question here is whether, in determining my call, I am supposed to consider the likely result of question two. In other words, it is completely clear what my call would've been without the UI, and I feel that given my general style there is no logical alternative for me. However, I know that other comparable players have somewhat different style, and that some of them would bid something else. Certainly if/when this hand goes to committee, the committee will often make its decision based on the result of question two, since they cannot determine what goes on inside my head (although if they are aware of my style and/or I have extensive notes documenting it perhaps that could/should impact their decision as well). The question is should I have to consider the potential answer to question two when making my call at the table?

 

There is also the side issue, raised in another thread, that if I am now bidding substantially differently than I would've bid without the UI (for example bidding much more conservatively than my usual aggressive pre-balancing style), then partner effectively has UI due to his own break in tempo!

[Apollo81]

My experience has been that your personal style is irrelevant. You should try to bid the hand as if you were trying to win a bidding poll. If you have a close decision then go with the one not suggested by the hesitation.

 

If a fair number of players wouldnt prebalance then you have to pass I guess.

[Apollo81]

There is also the side issue, raised in another thread, that if I am now bidding substantially differently than I would've bid without the UI (for example bidding much more conservatively than my usual aggressive pre-balancing style), then partner effectively has UI due to his own break in tempo!

Yeah, this is true. Partner should consider your bids as if he were trying to win a bidding poll, not playing opposite you.

[jtfanclub]

It is a player's duty under L16 actively not to choose from logical alternatives one that could demontrably have been suggested by the UI. The laws say that he may not choose such an alternative (no matter what he would have done without UI), and "may not" is the second-strongest wording the laws provide (just short of "must not").

Yes...and then it goes on to define 'demonstrably' in about a strict a terms as possible.

 

"The Director should not change a result unless the action chosen can be shown (demonstrated) to have been suggested. The actions that will now be removed by Law have to be suggested in an obvious, easily understood way - it must be readily apparent rather than a product of subtle bridge judgement".

 

In fact, in some ways, this contradicts L16. Suppose you have a simple:

 

1♥-P-2♥-P*

P

 

*Considerable hesitation.

 

Am I forced to pass, given that pass is an LA for me? The rules say that if 2♠ was suggested over pass (which it was), then you can't bid 2♠. But the Director Decisions book says that if 2♠ wasn't suggested, then you're OK. And clearly, 2♠ wasn't suggested more than, say, X or 2NT. (Edit: this is what awm was talking about, I just didn't see his post before I posted mine)

 

The ACBL seems consistent to me. They want you to bid normally, and have the director later determine if a bid was illegal. I happen to like this method, because otherwise the person who hesitated knows more information about partner's hand than if he didn't hesitate, which means now he has UI, and his partner knows that he knows that his partner knows...it becomes a mess.

 

But I (now) understand that the ACBL is probably alone in this.

[pbleighton]

I've got a LOT of different opinions from different directors on this one.

 

The last opinion I got, from the supervising director at a sectional, was that

you should bid what you want to bid and worry about an adjustment later

on.

 

I've also heard that you should pass unless no reasonable player would

pass.

 

Plus a couple of opinions in between.

 

Peter

[blackshoe]

In many cases, when you are looking at opinions on the laws, you have to be careful about jurisdictions, particularly when the opinions are posted on the internet, and so could come from any jurisdiction. That said, Peter's comment, if he meant "ACBL TD opinions", is right on the money. Part of that is the sheer size of the ACBL, part may be a lack of ongoing training - and part is probably due to people who've been directing for many years remembering something from years ago, not knowing or not remembering that whatever it is has changed.

 

My thoughts on the places to look:

 

1. The laws.

2. If the laws seem unclear, the minutes of the meetings of the WBFLC.

3. If things are still unclear, the minutes of the meetings of the ZA LC (for me, the ACBLLC).

4. Minutes or other guidance provided by the NBO (e.g., the EBU Orange Book and White Book, or "Duplicate Decisions" or the ACBL TD monthly newsletter - to which I'm not privy because I'm only a club level TD. :(

5. If all else fails, I write to rulings@acbl.org or rick.beye@acbl.org (Rick is the ACBL's CTD).

 

I do not think that either Mike Flader (rulings@) or Rick Beye would say that one should "bid normally" and let the TD sort it out. I suspect that DD is in error on this point.

 

On this point, there is nothing in the WBFLC minutes available to me (1999-2004), nor in the ACBLLC minutes (2000-2006). The WBF CoP says essentially that to "bid normally" is wrong - one must make every effort not to take advantage of UI. This accords with Law 73C which, frankly, IMO, ought to be included in Law 16 rather than remaining separate. Maybe we'll see that in the next revision, who knows?

[barmar]

My experience has been that your personal style is irrelevant. You should try to bid the hand as if you were trying to win a bidding poll. If you have a close decision then go with the one not suggested by the hesitation.

 

If a fair number of players wouldnt prebalance then you have to pass I guess.

The reason why personal style is generally irrelevant is because it's likely to be impossible for the TD or committee to make an objective decision based on this. Anything you or your partner say about your style is self-serving, so it cannot always be taken at face value. Although it shouldn't be ignored completely, it must be weighed against other factors. It's similar to the claim "I was planning on bidding that before he hesitated."

[Finch]

The Law is very clear: you are not entitled to bid "what you would have bid anyway" you have to avoid anything demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

Why does guidance vary, sometimes conflicting with this?

 

i) We do not want people doing "what they always intended to" when it is against the Law. This is partly because of the risk of being subconsciously influenced into believing they'd always intended to do something, while if partner had passed with the speed of light they wouldn't have done it after all... This is also because it is against the Law, and some people will get away with it, as their opponents know no better, and some won't.

 

ii) Some of these UI rulings are quite subtle. On other forums you can see long and difficult arguments about exactly what a piece of UI really suggests. At the table you can tie yourself up in knots trying to decide what is demonstrably suggested and what isn't, only to find other people disagree with you.

 

In case (ii) auctions, there is a lot to be said for just getting on with it, with the potential of calling the TD on yourself if you are unsure and the opponents don't think of it.

 

However, if you are in an auction where the UI unambiguously suggests a particular action, you had better be very certain there is no LA: it's not enough to do what you were going to do anyway. Speaking as a frequent AC chairman in England, if you are an experienced & knowledgeable player, and you choose an LA you know is illegal under the Law, then not only will the score be adjusted but you will be fined and/or lose your deposit if you appeal as well.

[LH2650]

I am really surprised that the ACBL would publish such a statement because it contradicts L16.

It does not. Aside from the somewhat abhorrent position taken by the EBU that I should allow UI from partner to influence my actions, the EBU interpretation suffers from a technical problem, within the ACBL jurisdiction at least. By definition, I am incapable of identifying logical alternatives.

[blackshoe]

Um. In the case of personal style, a "self-serving" statement about it must be weighed with regard to whether you believe it's true or not.

 

In the case of "I was planning on bidding that before he hesitated" the truth value of the statement is irrelevant, because the law requires him to now reconsider his next call in light of the UI.

 

So the cases are, IMO, not similar. B}

 

What Frances said is right on, though I recall one time that I did call the TD in a "case ii" situation, explaining to the table that I wasn't sure I had correctly dealt with the UI. My partner objected, vehemently, to me calling the director "on her". She refused to hear explanations both from me and from the TD that I was calling the director "on me". :)

[jtfanclub]

i) We do not want people doing "what they always intended to" when it is against the Law. This is partly because of the risk of being subconsciously influenced into believing they'd always intended to do something, while if partner had passed with the speed of light they wouldn't have done it after all...  This is also because it is against the Law, and some people will get away with it, as their opponents know no better, and some won't.

 

The first part is true, and something I mentioned before. In ACBL land, if you have the choice between two bids, and one of them is indicated by the UI, take the other one.

 

However, if you don't find yourself considering two or more choices, do NOT concern yourself about what is and isn't LA (in ACBL land). You're not even supposed to understand what LA means. Yes, this does mean that sometimes you'll get punished. In ACBL land, having you simply accept punishment for giving away UI is much, much preferable than than trying weird stuff for the benefit of a future committee. Just make the ethical call, and let them worry about the rules. It is doubtful that whatever punishment you get will be worse than the result if you make some anti-field bid because somebody somewhere might consider it an LA.

 

Don't worry about appealing it. If you appeal, at least when I've appealed, they had somebody knowledgable sit down with me, go over the issue, and tell me straight out if I'm likely to win, and if not if I'm likely to get hit with an appeal without merit. If they say you shouldn't appeal it, then withdraw the appeal. Simple as that.

[hrothgar]

However, if you don't find yourself considering two or more choices, do NOT concern yourself about what is and isn't LA (in ACBL land). You're not even supposed to understand what LA means.

This is the second time in this thread that I have seen this comment:

 

Could someone please expand up it. If possible, please provide links to appropriate case books or official publications.

[jtfanclub]

However, if you don't find yourself considering two or more choices, do NOT concern yourself about what is and isn't LA (in ACBL land).  You're not even supposed to understand what LA means.

This is the second time in this thread that I have seen this comment:

The link to not considering what is and isn't LA (in ACBL land) is based on the quote from the Director's Handbook, above. As far as not knowing what LA means, that's a comment I've heard from numerous directors, including Mike Flader. The ACBL doesn't expect you to understand what the LA actions in position would be, and I daresay most ACBL members are not capable of doing so. I know I'm not, except in the most obvious cases.

 

In the Flader-ruled case, I opened 1NT with a 3-2-6-2 hand. Bidding went pass, (long hesitation) pass, double. I figured that whatever my partner was figuring on bidding, the indicated call after the hesitation is pass, and since somebody somewhere would bid 2♦ with my hand. that's what I did, for -800 or so (my diamond suit sucked). Mike gave me the advice that I listed earlier.

[blackshoe]

I agree that if you don't know what the LAs are, or what an LA is, you should just do your best not to take advantage of the UI (law 73C) and let the chips fall where they may. OTOH, the "ethical call" depends on what an LA is, what LAs you have, and what the UI suggests, so "make the ethical call" when you have no idea about any of those things is not very useful advice. :P

 

BTW, a score adjustment in a UI case is not punishment - it is redress of damage to the non-offending side. It's kinda like the O.J. Simpson case. If he'd been convicted in the criminal trial, there would have been punishment, but the judgement in the civil trial was primarily (under the law) redress for damage to the families of the deceased, not punishment (although there may have been a punitive element; if so the judgement would have specified what part was punitive - but you can't do that in bridge).