[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.

aguahombre, on 2011-November-18, 12:09, said:

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]

MrAce, on 2011-November-18, 12:26, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-18, 12:09, said:

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.

mikeh, on 2011-November-18, 12:15, said:

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

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.

[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]

olegru, on 2011-November-18, 13:15, said:

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:

Quote

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.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2011-November-18, 10:52, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-18, 22:14, said:

"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.

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]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-18, 12:09, said:

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.

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]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-18, 12:09, said:

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]

Cascade, on 2011-November-19, 03:21, said:

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.