Easy ethical questions

[PrecisionL]

I pass and look for a new partner.

[kenberg]

I guess I would pass the first round and reopen with or without the hesitation. I think the real ethical question for me would be whether I would ever play with this partner again. I would want to know just what was the reason for the tank, and I cannot imagine that he could supply one. (response just above this came while I was typing. I agree.)

 

If my non-novice opponent pulls this trick I think the director should be informed. Some unintrusive monitoring of future hands seems in order. I'll buy mikeh's restraint, or at least a little bit sort of, but it stretches credulity.

 

I do agree that incompetence is a far more common explanation than wickedness when bad things happen, but this one is tough.

[barmar]

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.

I sometimes recommend this for practical reasons, because trying to perform what I call "UI calculus" at the table can be incredibly difficult; the fact that there's often no concensus in forum discussions attests to the difficulty.

 

However, I admit that it's not what the Laws say:

16B1a: After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information

that may suggest a call or play, ... the partner may not choose from among logical

alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another

by the extraneous information.

[neilkaz]

I'd have opened 1♣ as this seems to be a rather good 11 HCP for a 4432. After passing, I am reopening regardless of PD's hesitation and will plead that case if director rolls back a good result.

[aguahombre]

"the partner may not choose from among logical

alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another

by the extraneous information."

 

Exactly, that is why we must double. This hand demonstrates that partner could have been hoping for a pass. :rolleyes:

[MrAce]

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.

 

It should not work this way imo. For example in order to think pass is not a LA, we have to believe that pass is unlogical. Eventhough it may not be the choice of majority.

 

You alsi mentioned that most people would open with this. I agree, and does that make passing a non LA ? I doubt it, passing an 11 balanced is always a LA imo.

 

I think we are looking at this from a different angle. I think we shoul question if DBL is LA or not. Of course it is, and for majority it is the correct bid but does LAW allow us to use it when pd put us in this situation ? I think we should have a hand that pass would be absurd in order to believe TD shd ignore the hesitation. We are all a bit confused about the best bid and logical alternatives here imo.

 

If i was TD, i could adjust the score, but i would definetely not give any additional ethic penalty to the player who doubled. Other player's action is a bit more complicated, depends on his/her level. If he is not a decent player, as u said he might be thinking something insane, if he is a decent player he might have brain freeze. Just 1 incident alone is hard to judge his intentions imo. I would put it in record though.

 

Interesting hand, if we dbl it will stay, and if preempter opened with 7 ♦ all he needs is to score 2 tricks off of their AQ ♣

[MrAce]

"the partner may not choose from among logical

alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another

by the extraneous information."

 

Exactly, that is why we must double. This hand demonstrates that partner could have been hoping for a pass. :rolleyes:

 

Sorry but this is a bit off statement.

 

And what if pd was genuinely thinking with a hand that is too close to bid or pass ? You are in huge trouble then. Unless you find people in comitee who thinks pass with your hand is totally unlogical and is not an alternative. And knowing those comitees well, good luck with that.

 

This is not even a tempo break in bidding, OP says 15-20 seconds. My experience says when someone said 15-20 seconds it is usually about 10 seconds and this is still a serious long hesitation w/o screens.

[barmar]

By that logic, you can do pretty much anything, and this law becomes ineffective. First you think "the hesitation suggests choosing alternative X, so I should choose alertnative Y." Then you counter that with "But maybe he doesn't want me to choose X, so he's giving UI that suggests X, to force me to choose Y, therefore I must actually choose X." But then you can think "Hmm, maybe he knows I'll see through that ruse, so I should actually choose Y." And so on, and so on. If partner can be deceptive in the UI he's giving out, there's no end to it -- it's the old "but that's what he wants me to think" conundrum.

 

The general solution is to assume an ethical partner and that his hand likely conforms to the usual reasons for hesitating. An exceptional case like this does not count as "demonstrably suggesting" this type of hand. If it appears that he intentionally tried to mislead with his hesitation and it worked out, the TD adjusts -- it doesn't become a demonstrably suggested action.

[blackshoe]

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.

 

If you have UI, you must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it (Law 73C). So if you think the UI suggests you do a thing, do a different thing. Unless it clear that you have no logical alternative to the thing. B-)

 

I don't think pass is an LA with this hand, but I would respect the results of a poll that said otherwise.

[wank]

i'd pass with or without the hesitation (in england at least, it's not uncommon for people to open chunky pre-empts 3rd in hand to attract dodgy protections), though i admit i'm a conservative bidder. irrespective of my views on bidding, this would be a clear ruleback if doubling was successful.

 

mikeh, it used to be around 25%. since the laws changed, it doesn't work in quite the same way - effectively it needs to be less than 10 or 15% now.

 

of course you could ask in the laws section, but they tend to refuse to believe the facts you give them.

[aguahombre]

Setting aside my latest (not my "last", unfortunately) attempt at humor in post #30, I doubt I would "be in huge trouble" if I went before a committee with my double.

 

I might lose in that committee, and so be it. The poll here on the thread is not perfect; we don't know if it contains North's peers and those voting have too much information.

 

However, under 15 percent say they would pass regardless of the table action. We don't know if any of the players who would let the B.I.T. steer them away from the double would "seriously consider" passing unless the B.I.T. had occurred; and we still have half the pollees who believe strongly enough to double anyway.

 

Passing apparently is not really close; it is considered by the vast majority to be the wrong choice, even though some would do it anyway just because partner hitched.

[Cyberyeti]

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.

 

This is a very important question.

 

Brings me to a decision I had in a competitive slam auction. Partner tanks and bids 5 clubs, a suit he's bid and I've raised. I've guaranteed a 15 count, I actually have a prime 18 with 2 aces plus the AKQ of trumps. I'm always bidding 6 and am considering bidding 7. Am I allowed to think that if I bid 7 and it makes it will be ruled back to 6 so there's no upside in bidding 7 ?

[Cascade]

My initial thought was that I would pass but maybe I would consider double. Given that I would almost certainly pass after the hesitation and wish my partner had not caused me a problem.

 

My recollection is that the only times I have backed in at the three level after passing is with 4441 or 5440 hands (for a double) and seven card suits near the maximum that I have not preempted for some reason. To me that suggests that at least for me pass is a logical alternative.

 

Although some of this is irrelevant with regard to how the law is written. A logical alternative is one that would be seriously considered by a significant number of players (in the same class) some of whom would choose the call (or play). It maybe different elsewhere but my Regulating Authority defines a significant number (or proportion) as 25% (more than 1 in 4). We only need some of those to actually pass. Thus a logical alternative is a much lower number - "some" suggests to me only a small proportion perhaps even less than a "significant number".

 

Would pass be a logical alternative here. I think that is a yes given the evidence in this thread that there are who some would indeed consider passing. Although perhaps you can argue that they have not answered precisely the right question to apply the test in the laws.

 

Does the slow pass suggest doubling over pass. Yes I believe so (despite the actual hand). Most likely a slow pass is a hand that was close to a call other than pass. Given that we are at the maximum for our initial pass this suggests that partner's contemplated action was more likely to work than if we had some lesser hand. All of this suggests that our marginal action is more likely to be successful than if partner had passed in tempo.

 

I do not agree with those who suggest we should simply take our normal action and let the director sort it out. Ed has mentioned Law 73C which says players must carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information from partner. This is a very strong statement. The introduction to the laws say that when the laws say "must" and a player does otherwise that it is a very serious matter indeed.

 

Doing what you would normally do is not carefully avoiding taking advantage when there is a logical alternative that the UI suggests would be less successful. Indeed you are very likely to gain an advantage since some opponents (particularly less experienced) will not call the director and you will get away with your choice (a Law 16 infraction); some directors will rule in your favour (even when an infraction has occurred - yes directors make mistakes). The nett affect is that compared with another player who does not choose an alternative suggested by UI the player who ignores the UI and the constraints of Law 16 gains an advantage by not carefully avoiding gaining an advantage (Law 73).

 

To me the only lawful action when in possession of UI is to not choose an action that is suggested when you have a logical alternative. Sometimes this is clear cut. Sometimes it can be hard. At the time it can be hard to know what the UI suggests or what are the logical alternatives. Personally I feel happier avoiding taking marginal actions in such situations. Perhaps I don't always achieve the requirement of the law. However I think this approach is more often going to achieve what is required than just bidding what you would have bid anyway.

[paulg]

To me the only lawful action when in possession of UI is to not choose an action that is suggested when you have a logical alternative. Sometimes this is clear cut. Sometimes it can be hard. At the time it can be hard to know what the UI suggests or what are the logical alternatives. Personally I feel happier avoiding taking marginal actions in such situations. Perhaps I don't always achieve the requirement of the law. However I think this approach is more often going to achieve what is required than just bidding what you would have bid anyway.

+1

[gwnn]

Bidding what you would have bid anyway is plainly illegal. However, I have a problem with assessing logical alternatives. A practical surrogate for this is that I try to think of other stuff that I would perhaps consider and decrease the required margin of 25% (let's stick to this number for the sake of this post) to something less. e.g. here maybe I have 90% of me wanting to double and 10% of me wants to pass (I am not a schizo). However, this is not an accurate estimate of all my peers' choice and it has a large error bar, so there's a good chance that more than 25% of people would actually choose pass, hence I pass.

[blackshoe]

of course you could ask in the laws section, but they tend to refuse to believe the facts you give them.

 

We tend to remember the many times we're presented with a set of facts, we give a ruling, and then it turns out there are pertinent facts we weren't told. Both David and I, at least, try to avoid running off on a tangent of 'what if…' We do see a lot of that from others, I admit.

[kenberg]

 

 

I do not agree with those who suggest we should simply take our normal action and let the director sort it out. Ed has mentioned Law 73C which says players must carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information from partner. This is a very strong statement. The introduction to the laws say that when the laws say "must" and a player does otherwise that it is a very serious matter indeed.

 

Doing what you would normally do is not carefully avoiding taking advantage when there is a logical alternative that the UI suggests would be less successful. Indeed you are very likely to gain an advantage since some opponents (particularly less experienced) will not call the director and you will get away with your choice (a Law 16 infraction); some directors will rule in your favour (even when an infraction has occurred - yes directors make mistakes). The nett affect is that compared with another player who does not choose an alternative suggested by UI the player who ignores the UI and the constraints of Law 16 gains an advantage by not carefully avoiding gaining an advantage (Law 73).

 

 

I suspect that this is currently the consensus view and because of it I may feel I have to pass so that no one thinks I am cheating. Still, I am not convinced that this view is logically necessary. A reasonable interpretation of "carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information" is that you do not in any way alter your course of action based on UI. My first thoughts on such matters run toward "Am I really positive that this is what I would do had there not been a hesitation?" If so, and I claim I can do this reasonably dispassionately, , then I still have to turn to practical matters: "Will I be believed?" and "Even if they believe me that this is what I would have done, might I be ruled against anyway on the grounds that someone else (a logical someone else, not a nut) might have come to a different conclusion and therefore I have an LA?". I do throw away some hands even when I am confident I would have acted, simply in deference to these practical issues. But at some point I feel I have to act, and then to just take it in good grace if a committee decides that I cannot act. I have not had a lot of my bids rolled back so maybe I have it about right.

[kenberg]

If I can say one more thing about trust:

 

A while back I was defending a hand and at the close declarer on my right said "You got me". "Huh?" "You hesitated and I thought you had such and such". I simply explained that no hesitation was planned and I did not think that I had, and life went on. But later I thought along the lines of "Buddy, how long have you known me?" No point in following up on it but I really thought that we knew each other long enough and well enough that he could have at least considered that whatever he read into my actions was either inadvertent or simply in his imagination.

 

It is different with these hesitation auctions of course. There really can be disagreements among reasonable people as to whether an action is clearcut and thus allowed or there are LAs and so not allowed.

[gordontd]

 

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.

This seems to suggest that you think TDs should make rulings that they believe ACs should not uphold.

[campboy]

I suspect that this is currently the consensus view and because of it I may feel I have to pass so that no one thinks I am cheating. Still, I am not convinced that this view is logically necessary. A reasonable interpretation of "carefully avoid taking advantage of unauthorized information" is that you do not in any way alter your course of action based on UI.

What you say makes sense, but there is also law 16B to consider. That law says you may not choose a call which is suggested over a logical alternative by UI. So if you believe that pass is a logical alternative you must pass on this hand, even if (say) you had already decided to double before the stop period was up.

[kenberg]

What you say makes sense, but there is also law 16B to consider. That law says you may not choose a call which is suggested over a logical alternative by UI. So if you believe that pass is a logical alternative you must pass on this hand, even if (say) you had already decided to double before the stop period was up.

Right (or I assume you are right, I don't much study the laws). And this may be a practical approach. It's hard to tell what is in my soul so we replace it be a rather strict standard which can be (more or less) objectively applied. I'm ok with this, although asking me to really decide whether LAs exist is asking a lot. Some pretty good players on this thread disagree on whether pass is a logical choice here. Of course on this hand it is the right choice so one could argue it must be an LA, but at least at mps, which it was, I would think doubling can be expected to work out more often than passing. If everyone thinks doubling will work more often than passing, then passing seems illogical despite the fact it is the right choice on this hand. I guess I am saying that "logical alternative" has to be more than "could be right".

 

 

Anyway, I said I would double, hesitation or not, but I guess I have to acknowledge that with the hesitation I would at least consider saying "Oh hell" and passing it out. But to me, passing does not seem logical.

[blackshoe]

Any time judgement is involved in a ruling (as opposed to a straight 'read from the book' situation) you have to accept the possibility that your judgement may differ from someone else's. This is true of players, TDs, and AC members. As a player, in particular, you do the best you can with the limited information and little time available to you. The TD has more time and hopefully more information, the AC has in addition the opportunity for discussion.

 

If passing does not seem logical, there is nothing unethical about doubling, even if the TD or the AC later decides that in their opinion pass was an LA.

[peachy]

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.

 

 

IMO, this is so foul that it should never go without proper consequences to the "not rookie at all".

 

Edit:

PS. It is often said that incompetence explains many cases, but when incompetence is ruled out (as it is here), what is left?

[blackshoe]

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. As TD, I would be asking the hesitator what he was thinking about. Also, in making a ruling, the TD must be able to point to an infraction of law, and if you're going to penalize (i.e., issue a procedural penalty for) this hesitation, you're coming awfully close to flat out saying "you're cheating", so you better be damn sure of your evidence.

[peachy]

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. As TD, I would be asking the hesitator what he was thinking about. Also, in making a ruling, the TD must be able to point to an infraction of law, and if you're going to penalize (i.e., issue a procedural penalty for) this hesitation, you're coming awfully close to flat out saying "you're cheating", so you better be damn sure of your evidence.

 

You are right about the accusation part. If there was any conscious or subconscious intent of "reverse hesitation", there will also be answers to TD questions which will hide that intent. Who would voluntarily 'fess up that he was cheating?

 

In some jurisdictions there are recorder forms for incidents where something happened though apparently no law was violated. This would be a perfect example of things to record.