Easy ethical questions

[aguahombre]

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.

Disagree on two fronts:

 

The recorder form is for incidents where something happened. But, IMO, unless a law might have been violated it would be pointless. Some believe recording forms are pointless and useless anyways.

 

Secondly, if the matter is pursued at all, it should be done formally, starting with the director.

[JLOGIC]

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

 

Kind of. TD is supposed to determine if a bid is an LA for a player of your level. Polling you or me would not work if the person playing was a novice and vice versa. I would be surprised if that many experts would not balance with this hand. That said, if a poll showed that I was wrong, I would of course expect that AC to go with that. It is unfortunate that polls suffer from sample size issues, it's possible that only 1 out of 10 would pass on average, but that 1 person is in a poll of 3, but it's a flaw that we have to live with based on the realities of the polling process. I find this to be much superior than an director/AC just going with their judgement.

[JLOGIC]

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 very few or none of your peers would pass when given the hand and no UI, then passing is not a logical alternative. If 5 of your peers were polled, and all Xed, on what basis would you think an adjustment is warranted? Because sometimes it's right to pass, it suddenly becomes logical? By that nature, if you have a balanced 16 count with spades stopped and it goes 3S p p, you are not allowed to bid 3N when partner hesitates, because obviously passing out 3S could easily work out and has "logic" behind it. That would be BS of course, since all of your peers would bid 3N with that hand, because it is generally thought to be the correct bid on that hand type. This problem is the same.

[JLOGIC]

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%.

 

I always learned and heard 25 % was the number too (I think from my parents). I think it was on the bridgebase forums that I learned that this number is not actually written anywhere, maybe it's just one of those old adages that is not rooted in fact. Put another way, say there was a poll of 5 experts, and 1 of them chose some action, the others choosing something different. Is it reasonable to say that that bid is not a LA? This was a pretty compelling way to get me to believe that 25 % is too much. I do think it would be helpful if it was written somewhere official what results constitute a bid not being an LA.

 

By the way, what are your views on whether or not people say a bid is close or not. Let's say 1 expert out of 5 passed but found it very close. 4 experts doubled and found it automatic. Compare this to 1 expert finding pass automatic, and 4 doubling and finding it extremely close. Is pass not an LA in 1, but an LA in 2? It is easy to say "yes" and I think most people would, but fwiw I don't think how close people find it should factor in, I think it should just be what people would choose to bid at the table. This is largely because I think people confuse "close." For instance, opening a bad 12 count, almost all experts do it, but people might say it's "close" as in, if you changed my hand very slightly I'd pass, or wow I hate opening this crap but I would I guess, but I have a lot of sympathy for passing it or... Of course, that is wrong. Marginal actions/minimum hands can also be automatic. This kind of hand is similar, I believe people may say it's close because if it was any worse it would be a pass, but almost all of my peers would do it, making passing not a logical alternative.

[mikeh]

I always learned and heard 25 % was the number too (I think from my parents). I think it was on the bridgebase forums that I learned that this number is not actually written anywhere, maybe it's just one of those old adages that is not rooted in fact. Put another way, say there was a poll of 5 experts, and 1 of them chose some action, the others choosing something different. Is it reasonable to say that that bid is not a LA? This was a pretty compelling way to get me to believe that 25 % is too much. I do think it would be helpful if it was written somewhere official what results constitute a bid not being an LA.

 

By the way, what are your views on whether or not people say a bid is close or not. Let's say 1 expert out of 5 passed but found it very close. 4 experts doubled and found it automatic. Compare this to 1 expert finding pass automatic, and 4 doubling and finding it extremely close. Is pass not an LA in 1, but an LA in 2? It is easy to say "yes" and I think most people would, but fwiw I don't think how close people find it should factor in, I think it should just be what people would choose to bid at the table. This is largely because I think people confuse "close." For instance, opening a bad 12 count, almost all experts do it, but people might say it's "close" as in, if you changed my hand very slightly I'd pass, or wow I hate opening this crap but I would I guess, but I have a lot of sympathy for passing it or... Of course, that is wrong. Marginal actions/minimum hands can also be automatic. This kind of hand is similar, I believe people may say it's close because if it was any worse it would be a pass, but almost all of my peers would do it, making passing not a logical alternative.

I've posted on this before: I think some people confuse 'close' with 'clear'. I have often sugested that I find a choice to be close but clear and I agree with your view on this reopening double....it is, imo, close but clear.

[blackshoe]

I suspect the lack of specific numbers in the law is deliberate. The problem is that people want numbers because then they think they don't need to use their brains, just mindlessly follow the numbers. Every case is different, so you can't just mindlessly follow some number.

 

The ACBL, AFAIK, doesn't provide numbers. The EBU says (in the White Book) "one in five" for "seriously consider" and for "some would choose it" say "this means more than an isolated exception". I haven't checked other RAs.

[gwnn]

Jlogic, you seem to know a lot about club player tendencies (and are good at exploiting them) on a wide range of skill and integrity. What would you say are the chances of someone hesitating with malice on a hand like this to compel their partner to pass? I am not trying to prove a point, I am just curious on your opinion.

[aguahombre]

The latest few posts by Justin have helped me understand (I think) many of his past posts.

 

When the rest of us have been debating something back and forth, he will weigh in with a short ".....-automatic" or something similar. Apparently that does not mean he has not read what others are saying, or that he hasn't needed to give it much thought at all; it simply means he has considered the pros and cons (now or in the past), and it might be close but that is his firm position.

[JLOGIC]

Jlogic, you seem to know a lot about club player tendencies (and are good at exploiting them) on a wide range of skill and integrity. What would you say are the chances of someone hesitating with malice on a hand like this to compel their partner to pass? I am not trying to prove a point, I am just curious on your opinion.

 

I think that I have never thought that my opponent was doing this. At the very least, it would be far more rare than a similar tactic, something like 3D p somewhat slow pass with a yarb to try and get them to not balance or w/e. In general I think assuming malice is very unwise, it is just so much more likely that they were thinking about their lunch, or the last hand, or whatever. Hell, maybe they were trying to count to ten and be in accordance with the laws! Who knows, but thinking that they're trying to bar partner just seems unlikely, especially when they hold a hand that is not awful...it's not like some desperate thing. Just imagine how much foresight you'd have to have to tank with this hand...like, hmm my hand is not great, but good enough that LHO will pass, and then maybe partner will reopen with a X as a passed hand, and then my hand is not great for that! I will slow pass! It is just really unlikely that this type of ordinary hand would trigger that kind of reaction imo. People doing this kind of thing are usually not good enough to be that thoughtful.

 

Basically I think people are sometimes malicious but it is never the most likely answer, and in this case it is very unlikely with such an ordinary hand and with so many things needed for the situation to come up where you gain making it an uncommon situation. It is more likely that they tanked randomly (this happens all the time at the club), caught a situation where it benefited them, and their opponent got emotionally invested in it and came up with this genius plot.

[JLOGIC]

The latest few posts by Justin have helped me understand (I think) many of his past posts.

 

When the rest of us have been debating something back and forth, he will weigh in with a short ".....-automatic" or something similar. Apparently that does not mean he has not read what others are saying, or that he hasn't needed to give it much thought at all; it simply means he has considered the pros and cons (now or in the past), and it might be close but that is his firm position.

 

I often don't read other posts before giving my first reply in order to not bias myself in a bidding poll, then I read other replies and reply to them (hence double posting semi-frequently). But yes when I say something is automatic it could easily be because I have seen or thought about the decision before multiple times, and think something is clearly superior to something else based on that. The more experience you have, the less you have to think about some situations since you've probably seen it. For instance, I'm sure you never think what to do when you pick up xxx AKx AKJx xxx, but I'm sure a beginner does since they have two suits unstopped. And I'm sure you have already decided if you open 1N or 1C with AKx KTx xx AT9xx in various seats and vuls. etc.

[Hanoi5]

I remember a player taking a lot of time to pass on a competitive auction where his opponents had reached game and then telling his partner she couldn't bid because he had taken a lot of time and passed. I think you cannot judge a player from one isolated case but if the player is known to behave in this manner then he's very close to being guilty.

[gnasher]

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.

There's no need for either a procedural penalty or an accusation. We simply rule that the hesitator failed to be particularly careful in a situation when a tempo variation might work to the benefit of his side, that an innocent player (his partner) has drawn a false inference from the pause (namely that he had a good hand), that he had no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and that he could have known, at the time of the pause, that the pause could work to his benefit. Then we adjust the score to -670.

[MrAce]

I've posted on this before: I think some people confuse 'close' with 'clear'. I have often sugested that I find a choice to be close but clear and I agree with your view on this reopening double....it is, imo, close but clear.

 

I agree with u but i did not confuse the clear and close for this south in this topic.

 

For example you said in your previous post that this hand is an opener for most members in forums. I agree. But does this make not opening an 11 hcp balanced hand a non logical alternative ?

 

This alone is kind of proof that this south does not see this hand as you and i do. Under this condition i thought dbl or pass was a close call for him. Perhaps not for you and me. Why do we assume that he suddenly saw the light in his hand and will act different at 3 level ? Why is it so clear for this specific south ?

[JLOGIC]

I would not open this hand in a standard system and would be surprised if that was a more common treatment than passing. Thinking of the top american pairs who play natural, I'd be really surprised if any of levin/weinstein fred/brad zia/bob chip/lew would open this hand. I don't see why it is inconsistent to pass and then balance with a double. You have a maximum passed hand with no diamond honor, support or all suits, good quick tricks, etc. It's not like partner will go overboard when we're a passed hand.

[mikeh]

I agree with u but i did not confuse the clear and close for this south in this topic.

 

For example you said in your previous post that this hand is an opener for most members in forums. I agree. But does this make not opening an 11 hcp balanced hand a non logical alternative ?

 

This alone is kind of proof that this south does not see this hand as you and i do. Under this condition i thought dbl or pass was a close call for him. Perhaps not for you and me. Why do we assume that he suddenly saw the light in his hand and will act different at 3 level ? Why is it so clear for this specific south ?

I said 'many', not most. I wouldn't open it unless it fit my notrump range.

[mycroft]

A few comments from being ATT/AFK (at the table/away from keybeard) this weekend:

 

"reasonably dispassionate" - I agree with you. However, that is not dispassionate - and I know that "reasonably dispassionate" me has made "clearly based on UI" calls that I truly thought, at the time, were auto. Of course, when I did work it out, or when they opponents pointed it out and suddenly I had an "aha" moment, I became the prosecuting attorney on the call "this is absolutely influenced by the UI, that is clearly logical, this score has to be adjusted..."

 

Other times, I truly think it's auto, they ask, I still think it's auto, so we call the TD who can be dispassionate. No problem to me, either way.

 

--------

 

The people who are asking partner what was going on, well, I'm in that camp too.

 

--------

 

I have thought the opponents were trying to inhibit a balance exactly once - but I knew for a fact that this player tried every improper game he could think of, whenever he could, until he got called on it (and very carefully avoided reading the Lawbook, so he wouldn't "know" what he was doing was unethical). I will admit that a) it was much more likely than random, and b) that I could be biased against him :-).

 

--------

 

I also know one or two players who think in really strange places for a player of their calibre. I have to remind myself every time they come to my table to ignore my table feel because it will be wrong. I'm looking forward to the day I have a UI call (more likely, a "no logical reason to think at this point unless he had..." call) at their table; it should be exciting.