Ethical problem

[mikegill]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=s87hkq642d65ckt43&s=saqt92hatdak9ca96]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auction starts

 

p p 1c* 3d

3h p 3s p

4c p ?

 

1c = strong

 

You're playing Meckwell (they are at the other table) in a KO and you think you need a swing so you bid 5NT pick-a-slam. Partner goes into the tank forever and comes out with 6♠. I thought he would have an obvious bid with either 5-5, 6-4 or Hx in spades so I was pretty sure that his actual hand was about what he held. I really wanted bid 6N but didn't think I could, since I wasn't at all sure enough that I would have bid 6N over an in-tempo 6♠. Thoughts?

[jdonn]

KJ KJxxx x xxxxx and some other similar hands where 6♠ is best. I would say you have to pass.

[inquiry]

you bid 5NT pick-a-slam. Partner goes into the tank forever and comes out with 6♠.

You asked partner to pick a slam. He did so but out of tempo. Ethically I think you have to pass in this situation. The reason being his break in tempo show indecision and to bid again is not a logical alternative.

[MFA]

you bid 5NT pick-a-slam.  Partner goes into the tank forever and comes out with 6♠.

You asked partner to pick a slam. He did so but out of tempo. Ethically I think you have to pass in this situation. The reason being his break in tempo show indecision and to bid again is not a logical alternative.

I agree. Except that I suppose you mean that passing is a logical alternative.

[pooltuna]

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=s87hkq642d65ckt43&s=saqt92hatdak9ca96]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auction starts

 

p p 1c* 3d

3h p 3s p

4c p ?

 

1c = strong

 

You're playing Meckwell (they are at the other table) in a KO and you think you need a swing so you bid 5NT pick-a-slam. Partner goes into the tank forever and comes out with 6♠. I thought he would have an obvious bid with either 5-5, 6-4 or Hx in spades so I was pretty sure that his actual hand was about what he held. I really wanted bid 6N but didn't think I could, since I wasn't at all sure enough that I would have bid 6N over an in-tempo 6♠. Thoughts?

agree partner's tank=auto pass

[mikegill]

I did pass, and went 4 down since they scored 5 trump tricks. 6n was going to roll on a squeeze against RHO in H+C. Fortunately, not being in 6n didn't cost the match - we were losing by more than 13 at that point. At least I was right that we needed the swing...

[peachy]

You are doing it just right. 5NT asked partner to pick a slam and he picked the slam. You have UI that his pick might not be the best choice. Pass is the legal thing to do.

 

Had there been no UI, you would have been free to do whatever you wanted to do, but under the given circumstances, I would adjust the contract to 6S if you did anything other than Pass (and it was successful).

[nigel_k]

you bid 5NT pick-a-slam.  Partner goes into the tank forever and comes out with 6♠.

You asked partner to pick a slam. He did so but out of tempo. Ethically I think you have to pass in this situation. The reason being his break in tempo show indecision and to bid again is not a logical alternative.

It's not that simple.

 

You might have planned all along to pass either 6♥ or 6♣ but convert 6♠ to 6NT and you don't have to pass if he picks a slam that cannot be right based on your hand.

 

The question can't be answered without considering possible hands that partner might hold. Jdonn's example is a good one but I think partner will also choose 6♠ on many more hands where 6NT is better. Surely passing 6♠ is at least close to being illogical.

[jdonn]

Not even close, you have the T9 of spades.

 

And what you were planning all along doesn't matter.

[mikegill]

I agree that talking yourself into that you'd already decided what you were doing is fallacious. How do you know you wouldn't have changed your mind even if you had truly received no UI from partner?

[awm]

I think the best thing to do here is to try to take the action you would've taken without the UI. If you were not planning to pass 6♠ anyway (i.e. were trying to offer a choice between round suits or notrump) then go ahead and correct to 6NT.

 

Obviously it's possible that partner's hesitation influenced your decision. If you pull to 6NT, then the opponents can request a ruling and the director should poll to determine whether passing 6♠ is really logical etc.

 

The problem is that one can't anticipate the result of such a poll all that well at the table. However, supposing that you think passing 6♠ is a poor action in general (and it turns out that almost all other players of roughly your level agree), you shouldn't talk yourself into passing 6♠ just because of partner's hesitation.

 

It seems likely that there is some threshold regarding the quality of the spade suit here; for example if your spades were AQ432 then passing 6♠ is not a logical alternative, whereas if your spades where AQJT9 then passing 6♠ is obviously a reasonable thing to do. I agree with Josh that this hand likely passes the threshold for passing 6♠, but if you strongly feel otherwise I think you should be allowed to bid 6NT and then let the result of a poll govern the situation (rather than being forced to take an action most players would disagree with).

[peachy]

I think the best thing to do here is to try to take the action you would've taken without the UI.

That is illegal. The Laws specifically require that you do not do that, unless that is the only logical action to take.

 

In the posted case, Pass is logical. In the posted case, the UI suggests that 6S may not be the right slam. If I was always going to bid 6NT, why did I give partner a vote by 5NT in the first place.

[awm]

I think the best thing to do here is to try to take the action you would've taken without the UI.

That is illegal. The Laws specifically require that you do not do that, unless that is the only logical action to take.

 

In the posted case, Pass is logical. In the posted case, the UI suggests that 6S may not be the right slam. If I was always going to bid 6NT, why did I give partner a vote by 5NT in the first place.

That's not how I interpret the laws.

 

Your interpretation creates a number of problems. First, it creates instances where passing UI can actually be advantageous... for example if I hesitate before making a clear penalty double, partner is no longer permitted to remove it even if normally he would. Second, it forces players to guess what other players would do in situations just in order to be ethical, which is a somewhat ridiculous state of affairs. Third, it creates UI in the other direction; for example RHO opens, I make a slow pass, and partner balances... now since partner is disallowed from balancing on hands that are at all close (even if he ordinarily would), I have UI that partner has an "obvious balance" created from my own hesitation! Fourth, it creates disadvantages for "ethical" players -- suppose that in a situation I would always make call X, every player of my caliber would make call X, but because I have UI that suggests X I instead choose to "be ethical" and bid Y (mistakenly believing that "some comparable players might bid Y"). Now I obtain a bad result, whereas a "less ethical" player who simply bid what he was always going to bid (call X) benefits after a director's poll determines that Y is "not a logical alternative."

 

Certainly it makes sense in a situation where you do not know what decision is right, or what decision you would make without the UI that you should choose the option not suggested. However, I think the particular reference to this in the laws is more of a guideline as to under what circumstances the director should adjust rather than an indication that players who simply ignore UI and make their normal calls are somehow "unethical" or "cheaters" just because they are not willing to (or capable to) accurately simulate a poll of comparable players before selecting a call at the table.

[nigel_k]

Certainly it makes sense in a situation where you do not know what decision is right, or what decision you would make without the UI that you should choose the option not suggested. However, I think the particular reference to this in the laws is more of a guideline as to under what circumstances the director should adjust rather than an indication that players who simply ignore UI and make their normal calls are somehow "unethical" or "cheaters" just because they are not willing to (or capable to) accurately simulate a poll of comparable players before selecting a call at the table.

I agree with this 100%.

 

The title of the post is 'Ethical problem'. If you always planned to pull 6♠ but he bids it slowly, you don't have an ethical problem because by assumption you are not taking advantage of partner's break in tempo.

 

You might have a legal problem, but if you choose to pass a slow 6♠ you would only do it because you fear that you would not be allowed to keep your result if 6NT makes and 6♠ doesn't. There's nothing particularly ethical (or unethical) about that though.

[peachy]

I think the best thing to do here is to try to take the action you would've taken without the UI.

That is illegal. The Laws specifically require that you do not do that, unless that is the only logical action to take.

 

In the posted case, Pass is logical. In the posted case, the UI suggests that 6S may not be the right slam. If I was always going to bid 6NT, why did I give partner a vote by 5NT in the first place.

That's not how I interpret the laws.

 

Your interpretation creates a number of problems. First, it creates instances where passing UI can actually be advantageous... for example if I hesitate before making a clear penalty double, partner is no longer permitted to remove it even if normally he would. Second, it forces players to guess what other players would do in situations just in order to be ethical, which is a somewhat ridiculous state of affairs. Third, it creates UI in the other direction; for example RHO opens, I make a slow pass, and partner balances... now since partner is disallowed from balancing on hands that are at all close (even if he ordinarily would), I have UI that partner has an "obvious balance" created from my own hesitation! Fourth, it creates disadvantages for "ethical" players -- suppose that in a situation I would always make call X, every player of my caliber would make call X, but because I have UI that suggests X I instead choose to "be ethical" and bid Y (mistakenly believing that "some comparable players might bid Y"). Now I obtain a bad result, whereas a "less ethical" player who simply bid what he was always going to bid (call X) benefits after a director's poll determines that Y is "not a logical alternative."

 

Certainly it makes sense in a situation where you do not know what decision is right, or what decision you would make without the UI that you should choose the option not suggested. However, I think the particular reference to this in the laws is more of a guideline as to under what circumstances the director should adjust rather than an indication that players who simply ignore UI and make their normal calls are somehow "unethical" or "cheaters" just because they are not willing to (or capable to) accurately simulate a poll of comparable players before selecting a call at the table.

No matter what you say, the law is clear.

The key point that Law 73 makes is this:

QUOTE

When a player has available to him unauthorized information

from his partner, such as from a remark,

question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue

emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected*

alert or failure to alert, he must carefully

avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized

information.

END

(italics are my emphasis)

 

In the posted case, it is clear to anybody that the 6S bidder was not sure it was the right slam to bid. In other words, it was obvious what the UI suggested. If Pass is a logical alternative, the player may not change it to 6NT because doing so is taking advantage of the UI he has.

 

As to the various scenarios you give about "reverse hesitations" and other such shenanigans, they are illegal.

[gnasher]

That's not how I interpret the laws.

Perhaps not, but it's what they say. The laws don't say that you "may not choose from amongst logical alternatives ... (unless you had already made up your mind)"

 

Your interpretation creates a number of problems.

None of this is just Peachy's interpretation. It's how Laws 16 and 73 are interpreted by bridge authorities everywhere in the world.

 

First, it creates instances where passing UI can actually be advantageous... for example if I hesitate before making a clear penalty double, partner is no longer permitted to remove it even if normally he would.

Yes, but that's covered by the law about a hesitation that you could have known would work to your benefit. And, as Peachy says, if done deliberately it's cheating.

 

Second, it forces players to guess what other players would do in situations just in order to be ethical, which is a somewhat ridiculous state of affairs.

There are many areas of the game which call for good judgment. This is one of them, although it's not widely recognised as such.

 

Third, it creates UI in the other direction; for example RHO opens, I make a slow pass, and partner balances... now since partner is disallowed from balancing on hands that are at all close (even if he ordinarily would), I have UI that partner has an "obvious balance" created from my own hesitation!

That sounds like an argument that the Laws should be different from what they are. Possibly they should (though I don't think so), but the relevant question is what the Laws currently say.

 

Fourth, it creates disadvantages for "ethical" players -- suppose that in a situation I would always make call X, every player of my caliber would make call X, but because I have UI that suggests X I instead choose to "be ethical" and bid Y (mistakenly believing that "some comparable players might bid Y"). Now I obtain a bad result, whereas a "less ethical" player who simply bid what he was always going to bid (call X) benefits after a director's poll determines that Y is "not a logical alternative."

This is, again, just a matter of judgment. First of all, you work out what the logical alternatives are; then you decide which are suggested over others. That tells you which calls are legal, so now you select one of these.

 

Sometimes it's wise to go further, and consider whether there is a risk that a call you consider to be legal might be ruled illegal by the director or appeals committee. You might then decide to choose some other call to avoid the risk of an adverse ruling.

 

All of this, though, is just another bridge problem.

 

However, I think the particular reference to this in the laws is more of a guideline as to under what circumstances the director should adjust rather than an indication that players who simply ignore UI and make their normal calls are somehow "unethical" or "cheaters" just because they are not willing to (or capable to) accurately simulate a poll of comparable players before selecting a call at the table.

Sometimes the call that you choose is deemed by the authorities to be illegal and they adjust the score. They may be right, or you may be right, but either way it doesn't mean that you're a cheat: it just means that their judgment is different from yours.

 

As long as you chose the call believing it to be legal, you have done nothing wrong. It's only cheating if you choose a call that you believe to be illegal, in the hope of getting away with it.

[jdonn]

Yes Adam your interpretation of the laws is just clearly wrong and illegal. They (in this case) state what the "player" "must" do, not what the director should do later.

[phil_20686]

I am a little bit confused, the laws say you must not take any advantage, so that means if you can reason that another call must be correct in the absenece of a BIT then you are allowed to do that.

 

To me this seems like one of those times? If partner had any 3 spades or Kx of spades he would surely have raised 3s to 4s? Even sometimes with a suitable hand and xx spade he would have raised 3s directly? the fact that he preferred to bid clubs and deneid having 5 clubs by not bidding 6c over 5n surely means that he has at most xx of spades and 4 clubs. Since you *know* this there doesnt seem to be an ethical problem?

 

I cannot beleive that with Josh's example hand he would bid 4c over 3s.

[jdonn]

Lol that partner would raise on doubleton spades. Sometimes yes, usually no!

 

Anyway that first statement is obviously correct, if another call MUST be correct anyway then yes you can make that call!