Reverse ethics again

[Cyberyeti]

The auction starts 1♥-P-3♦ (alerted Bergen). The next hand asks about 3♦ with AKxxx spades and out, passes and the auction proceeds rapidly to 6♥. A spade is led and the contract goes one off, the opening leader had similar holdings in spades and diamonds.

 

The declaring side pipe up and say that after the question, the opening leader could hardly lead a diamond, so has been forced into the right lead. Do they have any sort of case ?

 

This is hypothetical, as things went as described but the spade lead was not found (led a club) and 6♥ made +1, but it might have happened.

[blackshoe]

The auction starts 1♥-P-3♦ (alerted Bergen). The next hand asks about 3♦ with AKxxx spades and out, passes and the auction proceeds rapidly to 6♥. A spade is led and the contract goes one off, the opening leader had similar holdings in spades and diamonds.

 

The declaring side pipe up and say that after the question, the opening leader could hardly lead a diamond, so has been forced into the right lead. Do they have any sort of case ?

 

This is hypothetical, as things went as described but the spade lead was not found (led a club) and 6♥ made +1, but it might have happened.

 

No.

[aguahombre]

As long as it is hypothetical, did the auction proceed rapidly to 6H without determining whether they had spade control in anticipation of a diamond lead or, failing that, of a ruling on reverse ethics?

[Cyberyeti]

As long as it is hypothetical, did the auction proceed rapidly to 6H without determining whether they had spade control in anticipation of a diamond lead or, failing that, of a ruling on reverse ethics?

I think basically no cuebids were made and it went via blackwood with neither diamonds nor spades being bid again.

 

What happened was totally real from a silver plate match yesterday, the only thing that didn't happen was the spade lead. Sorry to be slightly vague, but I was at the other table finding the same club lead to 4♥+3.

[AlexJonson]

In this particular case it seems simplest to suppose that the question was asked because there are various meanings for 3D in this situation.

 

In that case there is no UI of any kind.

 

If we speculate that partner only asks with a reason other than wanting to know, I still doubt that we know his reason when we choose our lead.

 

If we speculate that partner is too experienced to ask with a diamond holding, then we may have a problem.

 

I like the simplest approach, he asked because the bid was alerted and he conveyed nothing about his hand.

[paulg]

In this particular case it seems simplest to suppose that the question was asked because there are various meanings for 3D in this situation.

 

In that case there is no UI of any kind.

 

If we speculate that partner only asks with a reason other than wanting to know, I still doubt that we know his reason when we choose our lead.

 

If we speculate that partner is too experienced to ask with a diamond holding, then we may have a problem.

 

I like the simplest approach, he asked because the bid was alerted and he conveyed nothing about his hand.

Unless partner always asks, which is uncommon in the UK, then asking does carry some dangers of creating UI even though there are times when you just have to ask. In this case, suppose that you played doubles of a splinter asked for the lead of the higher suit? Or, as many do, play double differently depending on whether the Bergen bid is the weak or constructive raise.

 

My first thought when this happens is that it is unfortunate that the 'defending' side are put in an impossible situation if they do not know the opponent's methods.

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

Unless partner always asks, which is uncommon in the UK, then asking does carry some dangers of creating UI even though there are times when you just have to ask. In this case, suppose that you played doubles of a splinter asked for the lead of the higher suit? Or, as many do, play double differently depending on whether the Bergen bid is the weak or constructive raise.

 

My first thought when this happens is that it is unfortunate that the 'defending' side are put in an impossible situation if they do not know the opponent's methods.

The partnership concerned had never played together before so would have had no sophisticated agreements about doubles. My concern was based on a hand that was never ever going to bid or double (it was I think a 5(332) with AKxxx of spades as the only points, my partner held the hand and there were no hand records), why were they asking in the first place, so when they gain by it, I feel a question should be asked.

 

I know if I ask about a bid like that, my ethical partner will not lead that suit if there is a logical alternative, so it does offer a cheating opportunity, even more so if opps bid 2 suits naturally and a third conventionally and I can direct him to lead the 4th by asking about the conventional bid.

[blackshoe]

I am continuously surprised here by the frequent suggestion, whenever anything that might be in the smallest way untoward happens, that someone might be cheating. Yes, there are opportunities in the game for someone to cheat. No, it doesn't happen often. Why worry about it?

[Cyberyeti]

I am continuously surprised here by the frequent suggestion, whenever anything that might be in the smallest way untoward happens, that someone might be cheating. Yes, there are opportunities in the game for someone to cheat. No, it doesn't happen often. Why worry about it?

I'm not saying anybody was cheating, I'm saying it's a situation that creates an opportunity to cheat, which is surely undesirable. I always have issues with people who should know better asking in the middle of auctions when they were never going to do anything other than pass. This pair were county first/second team but not with each other.

[blackshoe]

People have a right to ask when it's their turn to call. You have an issue with people exercising their rights? I know that the EBU deprecates asking when you "don't need to know", but it's still a right.

[bluejak]

I like the simplest approach, he asked because the bid was alerted and he conveyed nothing about his hand.

The trouble with that is that experience has shown it just is not true. The reason for the EBU L&EC's recommendation is not that they invented a rule to make life difficult for everyone because they were bored one wet afternoon, but because of a number of abuses created by the fact that English players do not often ask without interest.

[semeai]

Fortunately, or unfortunately for those who like to ponder reverse ethics violations, in this case a spade lead would be beyond reproach. Opening leader has the negative inference that 3♦ was not doubled!

 

On the topic of reverse ethics: maybe we can hope to reach an equilibrium state in which the standard ethics violation and the reverse ethics violation are equally likely, and thus there is no UI in such an auction! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif

[AlexJonson]

The trouble with that is that experience has shown it just is not true. The reason for the EBU L&EC's recommendation is not that they invented a rule to make life difficult for everyone because they were bored one wet afternoon, but because of a number of abuses created by the fact that English players do not often ask without interest.

 

I appreciate your point, but I was not generalising ('in this particular case'. The EBU guidance does say, if I recall, 'particularly when the bid is not alerted'.

[RMB1]

I would say that until such questions result in a successful lead then you are tilting at windmills. The main problem with "reverse UI" ever occuring in practice, is that it requires a player who is sufficiently unethical to try it playing with a player who is sufficiently ethical to do what the UI does not suggest.

[Phil]

I share the concern of the OP. Even though I've never seen this exact situation ATT, I have seen the painfully slow penalty double holding the nuts (so partner does not pull).

 

While it isn't 'reverse ethics', I would think asking about 3♦ could well be for partner's benefit and creates UI. Asking a question is tantamount to saying, "oh, 3♦ is Bergen?, Pass. See partner, I didn't double, so please lead a spade".

 

Where is MRDCT when we need him? :)

[Cyberyeti]

I share the concern of the OP. Even though I've never seen this exact situation ATT, I have seen the painfully slow penalty double holding the nuts (so partner does not pull).

 

While it isn't 'reverse ethics', I would think asking about 3♦ could well be for partner's benefit and creates UI. Asking a question is tantamount to saying, "oh, 3♦ is Bergen?, Pass. See partner, I didn't double, so please lead a spade".

 

Where is MRDCT when we need him? :)

Yeah and the 1♠-P-tortured 3♠ as the "only bid 4 if you're absolutely sure, I have a heap of **** raise to 3" variation also exists.

[bluejak]

I appreciate your point, but I was not generalising ('in this particular case'. The EBU guidance does say, if I recall, 'particularly when the bid is not alerted'.

I do not understand the relevance of your reply.

[AlexJonson]

I do not understand the relevance of your reply.

 

Better, perhaps, that you give up the struggle and comment on the OP.

[nigel_k]

Three ways to avoid this:

 

1) Always ask.

 

2) Don't ask when you have diamonds unless you intend to make a lead directing double when the bid is artificial. Then a question followed by pass doesn't suggest diamonds. When passing you need to do it in a tempo that would have given you time to decide whether you wanted to double.

 

3) The easiest way of all: play double as takeout of the suit opened. It could be your hand.

[Vampyr]

I would say that until such questions result in a successful lead then you are tilting at windmills. The main problem with "reverse UI" ever occuring in practice, is that it requires a player who is sufficiently unethical to try it playing with a player who is sufficiently ethical to do what the UI does not suggest.

 

This is not true. The asking player may, as several posters have suggested, genuinely need to know.

[Cyberyeti]

This is not true. The asking player may, as several posters have suggested, genuinely need to know.

I have no problem if they genuinely need to know, but on a hand where they're never going to bid or double at that point, surely they can wait till the end of the auction. I happen to know that team mates had basically heard the entire system discussion of the pair who'd never played together before, so nothing odd was being played.

 

Also to Robin, in this case the club lead was found as while the leader had both black jacks, he also had the ♣109. If he has 4 small in ♣/♦/♠ even if a club is led, the asker has still improved his odds from 33% to 50%.

[Vampyr]

I have no problem if they genuinely need to know, but on a hand where they're never going to bid or double at that point, surely they can wait till the end of the auction.

 

Sure they can. But I think that a case where people are trying it on is not very interesting. The interesting cases are those in which the asker is entirely innocent.

[Cyberyeti]

Sure they can. But I think that a case where people are trying it on is not very interesting. The interesting cases are those in which the asker is entirely innocent.

I'd suggest that if you can put forward a genuine bridge reason for asking, there aren't going to be any problems for you. To me it's more like the "if there's no obvious bridge reason and the player could be aware that it might work to his side's advantage" type phrase that appears in the laws, although maybe not in this bit of the laws.

[RMB1]

This is not true. The asking player may, as several posters have suggested, genuinely need to know.

 

Rarely does the asking player need to know and wants the lead of another suit and gets a lead of that suit.

[mycroft]

Well, I need to ask after that auction, I think, pretty much all the time.

 

It could be:

• Bergen (in which case double shows diamonds)
  
• mini-splinter (in which case double shows clubs)
  
• weak jump shift (in which case double is rounds)
  
• fit jump shift (in which case double is rounds, but probably more shape and less strength)
  

(off the top of my head) which means that no-ask pass passes a *lot* of information.