Easy ethical questions

[olegru]

All vul, matchpoint

In the second sit you hold:

 

♠. A753

♥. AQ10

♦. 74

♣. J953

 

Bidding:

(Pas) – Pass – (3♦) – Pass

(Pas) - ?

 

Stop card used before 3d bid. Partner thought additional 15-20 seconds after stop card was taken back.

Would you balance?

[S2000magic]

No.

 

Whether partner huddled or not.

 

This is an 8-loser hand with nothing to say.

[billw55]

I am making a balancing double anyway, but I'm not sure I could convince a director of that.

[wyman]

IMO, bidding (well, doubling) is suggested but pass is not an LA.

[Hanoi5]

I think re-opening is called for in this sequence and especially with this hand. If opener had been the dealer then Pass would be a possibility for we'd fear responder could have passed with a strong hand, but in this case we know the bidding wasn't opened until third seat had his turn and he opened at the three level (weak). I think double is a must.

[Fluffy]

I know I would reopen with this hand everyday of my life. To me pass is not a LA, but I am not everyone.

[gwnn]

Pass. Thanks for nothing, partner.

[aguahombre]

I think re-opening is called for in this sequence and especially with this hand. If opener had been the dealer then Pass would be a possibility for we'd fear responder could have passed with a strong hand, but in this case we know the bidding wasn't opened until third seat had his turn and he opened at the three level (weak). I think double is a must.

Yes. Double is clear because of the original pass by my RHO. Is partner a rookie? Later on I will gently remind him of the awkward position created by his extra B.I.T in a common situation.

 

I would understand being ruled against here at the table where the TD shouldn't be looking at my hand or partner's, but the logic of Hanoi5 is my story, and I am sticking to it.

 

I also understand Gwnn's effort to bend over backward because of the B.I.T, and respect it; but, I just don't think the choice between pass and double is close.

Edited November 18, 2011 by aguahombre

[mikeh]

Many people on this forum would have opened this hand.

 

If we assume that there are hands on which it is normal to reopen with a double, how can this not be one of them? Yes, it has one more diamond than the classical shape, but surely we'd be allowed (expected) to reopen with Axxx AJxx x Jxxx?

 

Maybe a director ought to roll back any good result we obain from reopening since there was a BIT and we took a call other than pass, but it would be, imo, a very poor committee that upheld that ruling.

[ggwhiz]

Nothing easy here.

 

Change a small ♣ into a ♥ and I can defend the double, without it I don't think it will stand. Close but not close enough for me.

[olegru]

Is partner a rookie? Later on I will gently remind him of the awkward position created by his extra B.I.T in a common situation.

 

Actually hesitator was not a rookie at all. He just found a way to ban partner from a very likely but unlucky balancing, hesitating with this nice collection:

 

♠. K96

♥. KJ9

♦. 10983

♣. K76

 

I was dummy (1st hand) of this board. My partner got 110 (3d made) which did not score a lot against bunch of 200.

The case of reverse hesitation. When I realise what happened in this board it was way too late to ask for adjustment.

[paulg]

Pass. Thanks for nothing, partner.

This is my view too although I recognise it is extreme. I'd expect the director to permit anyone to double here.

[neilkaz]

Actually hesitator was not a rookie at all. He just found a way to ban partner from a very likely but unlucky balancing, hesitating with this nice collection:

 

♠. K96

♥. KJ9

♦. 10983

♣. K76

 

I was dummy (1st hand) of this board. My partner got 110 (3d made) which did not score a lot against bunch of 200.

The case of reverse hesitation. When I realise what happened in this board it was way too late to ask for adjustment.

 

Wow...that is sickening.

[aguahombre]

Actually hesitator was not a rookie at all. He just found a way to ban partner from a very likely but unlucky balancing, hesitating with this nice collection:

 

♠. K96

♥. KJ9

♦. 10983

♣. K76

 

Wow...that is sickening.

It surely appears to be the case when we see what he hesitated with. And, it would certainly have been worth pursuing in a timely manner (even if discovered too late for a table decision).

 

But, I do not know whether olegru is drawing a conclusion (probably accurate) or making a statement based on additional information.

[RMB1]

How can reverse hesitation be a worth-while tactic on this hand? The poll shows that 50% would bit regardless of hesitation, so you haven't achieved anything.

 

In general, if one member of a partnership is unethical enough to try a reverse hesitation, is his partner likely to be ethical enough to pass with a marginal action because of the hesitation?

 

IMHO these apparently deeply sinister reverse hesitations rarely happen deliberately.

[mycroft]

I would double. I would expect that it may get rolled back, but I have Aces, and almost perfect shape for a balancing double, and on the whole. 3♦ is an A- contract to defend.

 

When I saw partner's hand, I would ask him "whatever were you thinking about?" If I had passed, and passed because I thought I was ethically forced to (a slightly worse hand, say), and it turned out that -130 was a good score, I'd be notifying the TD myself.

 

I'm sure that the thinker had a perfectly valid and logical reason to do what he did, but I think it requires some education from the TD.

 

I hope as opponents, that you did call the TD and explained the situation to her, once you figured out the hand. It's unfortunate that there doesn't look like any "I played him for the X because of the long hesitation" plays you can claim to make.

[aguahombre]

How can reverse hesitation be a worth-while tactic on this hand? The poll shows that 50% would bit regardless of hesitation, so you haven't achieved anything.

 

In general, if one member of a partnership is unethical enough to try a reverse hesitation, is his partner likely to be ethical enough to pass with a marginal action because of the hesitation?

Leading to the next question:

 

Which is REALLY the ethical thing to do --- make the call which you believe is correct and let things happen as they will, or decide for yourself which choice is more ethical? I still sympathize (empathize) with those who chose to pass only because of the hitch, and would have doubled otherwise; I just believe they were wrong.

[mikeh]

It is, I think, a mistake to infer that a person who hesitated on a hand which, to us, posed no problem, was doing so with ill-intent.

 

Yes, we can and should be suspicious, but people hesitate for a wide range of reasons. More importantly, as anyone who has seen the results on BBO can attest, the fact that to a 'sane' player an action appears to be clear (here: pass over 3♦) does not mean that thinking about doing something else is impossible.

 

Bad players make bad calls. Terrible players make terrible calls. And lots of players at least think of doing something insane. Here, he was looking at high cards and some length in both majors and enough small diamonds that maybe he was worried that -110 would be a bad result, and thinking that partner wouldn't hang him for doubling since partner was a passed hand.

 

Would this be sensible? No, not in my view. Is it possible that someone would think like that and have to talk themselves into doing the right thing? I think so.

 

I am not saying that this was the player's thinking...I have no way of knowing what he was thinking and maybe he was cheating. But it is wrong to assume the worst.

 

In my experience in life and in bridge when one has to choose an explanation for apparent wrong-doing, incompetence is far more likely the true reason than is intentional wrong-doing. As a trial lawyer, I see a lot of both :D

[MrAce]

Pass is a LA. replies here proves that it is a LA.

 

By the way, TD does not have the right to NOT permit the DBL at the table during play. For example if TD was called, after looking at South hand he can NOT say "Ok, i will undo the DBL and West will play 3♦" Because this will give West an UI about south's hand. He lets the DBL and subsequent auction remain, and if he believes south did not have his bid without North's hesitation, then he can adjust the score if EW are not happy with the result.

 

This is where it gets confusing for some TDs. Because sometimes NS will claim that the contract that they ended (lets say 3M) was beatable with a correct, normal defense and that EW's poor result is due to their bad defense, not bidding. It was about 15 years ago when we get course by Ton Kooijman and i asked him specifically "How do we define the poor defense ?"

 

He said " Often you do not decide that the defense was poor, defenders do not need to make good or even normal defense if other side's actions caused an incident, a poor defense is if you have an Ace in your hand and they play 7NT, and u dont cash it" Perhaps he exaggerated the example just to make sure we do not overanalyse the correct defense when other side is in fault.

[Gerben42]

I always double... I mean I already have more than I can have for my original pass (which I wouldn't have made).

[olegru]

Probably words I choose suggested that South hesitated deliberately to make his partner pass, stronger than I really think. Sorry about that.

I actually agree with Mikeh that “intentional wrong-doing” is not too often in our game. I personally could recall more than a couple of accidents when my behavior could be easily interpreted as a “criminal” but was just the result of tiredness or distractions.

 

North was visually upset with his partner's hesitation but I did not realize the reason unless the next day, when I looked at the sheet with boards.

I hope North and his partner discussed the issue.

 

 

Which is REALLY the ethical thing to do --- make the call which you believe is correct and let things happen as they will, or decide for yourself which choice is more ethical? I still sympathize (empathize) with those who chose to pass only because of the hitch, and would have doubled otherwise; I just believe they were wrong.

 

This was an actual reason why I put this story here. Way too often I heard observations like: “I would bid, but of cause had to pass after partner’s hesitation.” I believe if player was ready to make a certain bid, he must bid it even if partner’s hesitation suggested it too and let director to sort it out afterwords.

[mikeh]

Pass is a LA. replies here proves that it is a LA.

 

Only 3 out of 18 voters, so far, voted for pass absent a hesitation. I don't recall what the Laws or policy says about how popular a call must be before it is considered a LA: I have always thought of it as being a call that 25% of players (of the appropriate level) would make, and pass here is supported by significantly fewer than 25%.

 

What I do see, and what I think is a well-intentioned error, is a tendency to allow partner's action to talk us out of what we would have done absent that action. But I may be misunderstanding the onus on us.

[billw55]

Which is REALLY the ethical thing to do --- make the call which you believe is correct and let things happen as they will, or decide for yourself which choice is more ethical? I still sympathize (empathize) with those who chose to pass only because of the hitch, and would have doubled otherwise; I just believe they were wrong.

I think I should always try to do the correct bridge action at the table. Afterwards if there is possible damage, I will be open and honest with ops and director about the hesitation, and trust the director (or committee if it comes to that) to make the right ruling. In short, my job is bridge, rulings are for directors.

 

 

In my experience in life and in bridge when one has to choose an explanation for apparent wrong-doing, incompetence is far more likely the true reason than is intentional wrong-doing. As a trial lawyer, I see a lot of both :D

There is something called Hanlon's Razor, a corrolary to Occam's Razor. Basically it says, do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[ggwhiz]

I consider this to be an ethical attempt with an unlucky result. I wouldn't even call the Director after a double here or a pass, it's that close. If you see a cheater under every bush...........

 

At least no one voted for pass/without bid/with the hesitation.

 

Just to clarify, I would always double at IMP's but a possible 4-3 heart contract or a nowhere 4 club one make it less attractive red at MP's.

[wyman]

I think this isn't quite right. I can openly assess when I'm considering two calls. If I decide that it's close, even if I decide A > B, I can (and should) choose B if A is suggested by UI.

 

In a case like this one, pass barely enters my mind, and I am not going to fall on my/our sword because partner hesitated. I'll make the call which I think is clear, and I'll be honest with the director and let him sort it out if I end up being wrong.