Help
Ok say the auction goes
1C by pard, 1D on my right, 1H by me, 1S on my left, 2H by pard, 2S on my right, 3H by me, pass, and partner thinks for a long time and passes. Now say RHO, some cagey pro, bids 3S. There is a good chance he's doing this because my partner tanked and he's trying to push her to 4H. Am I allowed to use this information when considering doubling RHO? Or would that be taking advantage of UI?
Page 1 of 1
Laws/Ethics question?
#2
- Under bidder
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,797
- Joined: 2004-July-25
- Gender:Male
- Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Posted 2007-August-25, 13:02
I think this is still UI for you. The opponents may take advantage of it, but you think that RHO did only because of your partner's tank. so I don't think you may you use this information.
Interesting situation though, clearly I don't know for sure.
Interesting situation though, clearly I don't know for sure.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.
- hrothgar
- hrothgar
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 14,005
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2007-August-25, 13:27
Hannie, on Aug 25 2007, 02:02 PM, said:
I think this is still UI for you. The opponents may take advantage of it, but you think that RHO did only because of your partner's tank. so I don't think you may you use this information.
Interesting situation though, clearly I don't know for sure.
Interesting situation though, clearly I don't know for sure.
agreed
The point is, I think, that while you are truly using your read of RHO, that read incorporates being aware of partner's tank, which is UI. If you were NOT aware of the tank, then your thought process would be different.
Consider: partner passes in tempo and cagey pro bids 3♠... now, you don't have the 'tank' UI to influence your view of RHO, and hence will make your double based on legally available info only.
Accordingly, it seems to me to be clear that you are allowing knowledge of the tank to influence your call if you double here to stop partner bidding.
Most UI situations depend on primary inferences: you have raised an interesting secondary inference issue
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,277
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2007-August-25, 14:58
Doubling 3S to keep your partner from bidding 4H only makes sense if you think you can beat 3S. So you are saying that your cards alone don't really justify this but rather you think he is overbidding to push your tanking partner and so you want to use your estimate of the Fox's cagey maneuver over the tank to infer you can beat 3S? As long as the tank figures into the equation I doubt it's right to do it.
In the real world I doubt it matters. If your own cards justify a double then it will stand and if your cards do not justify a double I doubt anyone will want to hear your theory about the Fox and the Hen (or Chick). They may believe you, they just won't care.
As a theoretical exercise in ethics, it has its charms.
In the real world I doubt it matters. If your own cards justify a double then it will stand and if your cards do not justify a double I doubt anyone will want to hear your theory about the Fox and the Hen (or Chick). They may believe you, they just won't care.
As a theoretical exercise in ethics, it has its charms.
Ken
#5
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,520
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-August-25, 16:03
On second thoughts, even if RHO whispered in your ear "Ok let me try to push her to 4H" making it AI why he bid 3S it is still UI that partner was thinking to bid 4H, and if your hand says this is a bad idea, this makes doubling more attractive, thus illegal...
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 18,068
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2007-August-25, 16:32
For players, the governing law is 73C:
It doesn't seem to me that acting in this situation is "carefully avoid[ing] taking any advantage".
Quote
When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.
It doesn't seem to me that acting in this situation is "carefully avoid[ing] taking any advantage".
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
Our ultimate goal on defense is to know by trick two or three everyone's hand at the table. -- Mike777
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#7
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 668
- Joined: 2003-February-19
- Gender:Male
- Location:Germany
Posted 2007-August-25, 17:54
On of the fundamental principles of bridge is that I should be able to know everything opps know, except for what cards they hold. If there was some secret, I cannot judge opps' bidding and play correctly. If it was unlawful for me to know that my opp knew that my partner is probably a little stronger than his pass suggests, and that my opp knows that therefore the likelyhood that my partner bids 4♥ is greater than without the hesitation, this would be a contradiction to that principle.
Law 16 requires me to avoid any action that might be suggested by the UI that I received from my partner. But it does not require me to ignore the UI and pretend that opps have not noticed the UI. Clearly opps have noticed the UI, and maybe used it in their decision process. If I ignore that factor, I cannot fully understand their decisions.
So clearly knowing that opps know about the UI must be allowed.
However, in the present case, the UI suggests both double and 4!H. Therefore, I can only double if pass would be no logical alternative. So regardless of what I think about RHO's reasoning for the 3♠bid, if I do not have a clear double over 3♠, I cannot double. But if my ♠ holding is so nice that pass is no LA, then nothing can stop my double.
Karl
Law 16 requires me to avoid any action that might be suggested by the UI that I received from my partner. But it does not require me to ignore the UI and pretend that opps have not noticed the UI. Clearly opps have noticed the UI, and maybe used it in their decision process. If I ignore that factor, I cannot fully understand their decisions.
So clearly knowing that opps know about the UI must be allowed.
However, in the present case, the UI suggests both double and 4!H. Therefore, I can only double if pass would be no logical alternative. So regardless of what I think about RHO's reasoning for the 3♠bid, if I do not have a clear double over 3♠, I cannot double. But if my ♠ holding is so nice that pass is no LA, then nothing can stop my double.
Karl
#8 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-August-25, 17:59
mink, on Aug 25 2007, 06:54 PM, said:
However, in the present case, the UI suggests both double and 4!H.
I disagree with this statement. Partner is very likely something like 6-4 when they think of bidding 4H in this auction (assuming theyre not a novice thinking with a random maximum). I mean to bid game when partner didn't invite partner must be shapely. Yet they didn't jump the round before, so they are light in the way of HCP. With a 6-4 11 count it is worrisome that we may have an 18 point game or so when partner bids 3H because he too probably has some extra shape, so that is when you think about bidding in this auction. That being said, a double is not only not suggested, it's discouraged. So one might even argue that if double is a logical alternative I must double.
My actual hand for instance was Q987 JTxxx Kxxx ----. Anyways, I did double, we beat them 2 but were cold for 4H (which partner would likely have bid had I passed), partner did have the expected hand type.
#9
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2007-August-25, 18:12
mink, on Aug 25 2007, 06:54 PM, said:
On of the fundamental principles of bridge is that I should be able to know everything opps know, except for what cards they hold.
The laws say completely the opposite in the case of UI. If partner noticeably hesitates, the opponents are entitled to that information but I am not.
Judging from the result of 3♠X-2 or 4♥= it would seem the pro was not so cagey after all.
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#10
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2007-August-26, 04:16
The hesitation is UI. So your deduction that RHO is probably pushing "because your p tanked" is also UI...
Any action you take now should be based on a fluent auction.
Any action you take now should be based on a fluent auction.
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#11
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,151
- Joined: 2003-June-11
- Location:Southern California
Posted 2007-August-26, 12:20
Free, on Aug 26 2007, 02:16 AM, said:
The hesitation is UI. So your deduction that RHO is probably pushing "because your p tanked" is also UI...
Any action you take now should be based on a fluent auction.
Any action you take now should be based on a fluent auction.
But if our RHO tanked before bidding wouldn't it be AI?
Pard's UI would seem to take precedent over RHO's AI however.
"Phil" on BBO
#12
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2007-August-26, 12:46
That's more difficult 
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#13
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 22,182
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2007-August-29, 16:06
mink, on Aug 25 2007, 06:54 PM, said:
On of the fundamental principles of bridge is that I should be able to know everything opps know, except for what cards they hold.
That principle only refers to the opponents' agreements and partnership understandings, i.e. secrets that are shared within their partnership.
The Law is pretty clear that tempo changes are AI to the opponents (but they take advantage of it at their own risk) but UI to partner.
#14
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,083
- Joined: 2006-August-31
- Gender:Male
- Location:Santiago, Chile
- Interests:Bridge, Video Games, Languages, Travelling.
Posted 2007-September-04, 09:43
The problem is you're taking advantage of an opponent's hesitation (which is valid) prompt by your partner's hesitation (which is not a valid source of information). I guess the correct thing to do is analyze what your opponent might have been thinking had your partner not hesitated; that you can take into consideration.
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
Also, he rates to not have a heart void when he leads the ♥3.
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
Besides playing for fun, most people also like to play bridge to win
My YouTube Channel
#15
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2007-September-04, 10:57
One more twist..
Wat if you jsut had to go to toilet in a hurry after 3♥ for some reason.
When you come back RHO bids 3♠
Can you take into account that he MIGHT have did it based on your partner thinking?.
Wat if you jsut had to go to toilet in a hurry after 3♥ for some reason.
When you come back RHO bids 3♠
Can you take into account that he MIGHT have did it based on your partner thinking?.
#16
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2007-September-04, 12:04
That is pretty funny.
Should your partner alert your leaving to go to the toilet, announcing that you always go to the toilet in competitive auctions so as to avoid ethical problems caused by hesitations while you are away from the table?
Should your partner alert your leaving to go to the toilet, announcing that you always go to the toilet in competitive auctions so as to avoid ethical problems caused by hesitations while you are away from the table?
Page 1 of 1