[CSGibson]

I was playing a club game with a pickup partner recently, and had a question of ethics come up

If declarer leads a J toward an AQx(x) combination on the board, and my partner hesitates before playing a small card, should I feel constrained to play the king when declarer finesses, even if I know the best defense for a particular hand is to duck?

I did duck, because I was going to do so no matter what partner did, having already decided that it was the best defense, but do I have an additional obligation not to cooperate with an unethical partner when he pulls shenanigans?

[Stephen Tu]

You holding the K is authorized information to you. Partner's hitch doesn't convey any information to you other than he is unethical. So assume partner's card is a true count card & duck as appropriate.

I would duck & have a word with partner privately after the round.

[helene_t]

Agree with Stephen.

I can imagine myself protecting opps against partner's unethical behavior if the atmosphere is particularly explosive, but it is not the right thing to do, I think.

[pclayton]

So pard coffeehouses?

I personally like the idea of ducking when the Jack is led, ducking when declarer leads to the Queen, then 'unblocking' the King under the Ace.

That should send a clear message

[han]

Agree with Stephen, you are in no way obliged to misdefend because partner behaves unethically.

Having said that, we all know the story about the world class player who didn't take his ace because he "thought his partner had it". I like to think it is a true story and would admire anybody who does the same thing with a highly unethical partner.

[Halo]

You certainly added yourself to a list of prime suspects.

You are not obliged to do anything in particular - but you better have an exceptionally convincing story ready.

[ArtK78]

Halo, on Oct 28 2007, 03:52 PM, said:

You certainly added yourself to a list of prime suspects.

You are not obliged to do anything in particular - but you better have an exceptionally convincing story ready.

I totally disagree with this post.

I do recall a story about a situation like this. Declarer plays a J towards an AQxx in dummy. Second hand hesitates and then plays small. The J wins.

Declarer leads the 10. Second hand hesitates, and the 10 wins.

Finally declarer claims. The King was offside all along. The hesitator screams at his partner "Why didn't you win the King?"

"I thought you had it!" was the response.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

I would duck & have a word with partner privately after the round.

I'd do that, too. Depending on my partner's response I wouldn't play with him anymore.

[kenberg]

Assuming that you are a known quantity, I sort of like a tank by you and then a small card. You simultaneously make the play you believe that the cards justify, you warn declarer, you send a message.

I have at times considered comments such as "I have no idea what he is hesitating about since I am holding the king" but I have never done it. A tank and then small may be a good substitute. Or maybe "Oh for Christ's sake will you play the Damn spot". I suppose it might lead to a director call.

Addendum: I recall Victor Mollo had an episode where one of the characters, the Walrus I think, had devised the scheme of hesitating when he actually had a choice. His opponent would assume that the Walrus was good enough to have prepared his play in advance and therefore the hesitation was a coffeehouse gambit. He would then assume the Walrus lacked the cards that the Walrus actually held.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Stephen as well.

I do wonder, though, why when a stranger does something, folks immediately assume he's unethical. Maybe he had a reason for his hesitation - or maybe he's just slow and didn't realized he'd done it.

I'm not making excuses for him, I'm saying don't hang him until you know he's guilty.

[jdeegan]

Ask Miss Manners. More specifically, consult with the tournament director after the round is over. Remember, any rude behavior on your part is unacceptable and a sign of ill breeding. One hopes that a bit of coaching from the director will correct your ex-partner's problem for good, and that he/she will become regular member and an asset to the club.

Worst case for you would be an incompetent tournament director. If so, you may have to do the coaching yourself in a firm but gentle way. Should your ex-partner object, make it clear that his/her coffee housing is an embarrassment to you as well as to him/her self.

Fortunately, in the case as given to us, no one else was injured. If this matter becomes public, you may have to reassure the declarer on the hand in question that he/she was not injured from a bridge standpoint, else you would have intervened on his/her behalf as well.

[Codo]

What exactly did the hesitation show?

That he has the king after a jack is lead and AQ is vissible in Dummy?
Nearly impossible, isn´t it? I mean, how bad can your partner be?
Declarer will always play low, no matter which card besides the king he chooses. So there is NO reason to hesitate to "show" the king.

Just IF declarer has an 11 card fit, he may take the finesse after the hesitation. But this was not the case here.

This "coffeehousing" is so senseless, that there must be another reason for his hesitation. He surely did not try to show the King.

Mabye he had to decide whether to show count, pos/neg. smith Peter or Lav. with his card, or he was simply surprised that declarer played this suit, or he was still in thoughts about the whole hand but forgot to mention this.

So just if he hesitate to show you that he has more then one card in the suit, it was unethical. If pd tried this, talk to him and stop him.

[han]

jdeegan, on Oct 29 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Ask Miss Manners. More specifically, consult with the tournament director after the round is over. Remember, any rude behavior on your part is unacceptable and a sign of ill breeding. One hopes that a bit of coaching from the director will correct your ex-partner's problem for good, and that he/she will become regular member and an asset to the club.

Worst case for you would be an incompetent tournament director. If so, you may have to do the coaching yourself in a firm but gentle way. Should your ex-partner object, make it clear that his/her coffee housing is an embarrassment to you as well as to him/her self.

Fortunately, in the case as given to us, no one else was injured. If this matter becomes public, you may have to reassure the declarer on the hand in question that he/she was not injured from a bridge standpoint, else you would have intervened on his/her behalf as well.

I disagree, this is not a matter for the tournament director.

[jtfanclub]

kenberg, on Oct 28 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Assuming that you are a known quantity, I sort of like a tank by you and then a small card.

This is good, I like this.

[kenberg]

I have thought a bit about the idea that this could not be a coffeehouse pause because it would just be too stupid. Maybe. I certainly agree that someone should not be hanged for one instance that very possibly is explainable by innocent inattention or some such. Fair enough. But I think one could design a hand where the cover by second hand would be ill-advised. Say declarer holds Jx. If the J is covered declarer has exactly two tricks in the suit AND exactly two entries to the board, and this may be useful. If the J is not covered declarer has one entry (unless he makes the rather risky play of the Q on the J). Of course after the duck he has three tricks in the given suit but this might not be clear to him. If he leads to the Q and fourth hand now produces the K he has one trick in the suit and no entries to the board. If instead he leads to the ace he gets two tricks, the same as if second hand had covered, but only one entry. Could be critical. Seems like a choice, and seems he might sometimes get it wrong. My guess is he goes up on the second round and settles for two tricks and one entry. Depends on the hand, I imagine. As most everything does.

At any rate I agree that this one instance alone should not be considered conclusive. Still, I have noticed in online bridge that it is remarkable how often the dog has to be let in just as a crucial play arises and the dog owner has no legitimate reason on the cards to pause.

[jdeegan]

Hannie, on Oct 29 2007, 08:21 AM, said:

jdeegan, on Oct 29 2007, 01:58 AM, said:

Ask Miss Manners.  More specifically, consult with the tournament director after the round is over.  Remember, any rude behavior on your part is unacceptable and a sign of ill breeding.  One hopes that a bit of coaching from the director will correct your ex-partner's problem for good, and that he/she will become regular member and an asset to the club. 

Worst case for you would be an incompetent tournament director.  If so, you may have to do the coaching yourself in a firm but gentle way.  Should your ex-partner object, make it clear that his/her coffee housing is an embarrassment to you as well as to him/her self.

Fortunately, in the case as given to us, no one else was injured. If this matter becomes public, you may have to reassure the declarer on the hand in question that he/she was not injured from a bridge standpoint, else you would have intervened on his/her behalf as well.

I disagree, this is not a matter for the tournament director.

Miss Manners is no pussycat when it comes to cheating at cards. Her suggestion about how to handle a nickel and dime cheat in a poker game was as follows:
Gentle Reader: In a time of changing moral values, when sympathy is expected to be the proper response to unsocial behavior, cheating at cards is about the only clear-cut, unforgivable crime left. .......... Tell him [the cheat], "We are sorry, but you are no longer in the game." This is sufficiently subtle if you compare it with the traditional American method of dealing with people who cheat at cards.

Alas, now that guns have been outlawed, only outlaws have guns. So, the primary remedy left to us is ostracism from the table. IMHO, this weapon is best brandished by the tournament directors who speak to the desires of all of the club members. Let's face it if the rest of the table wants an unethical, rough and tumble game, you may have to be the outcast. After all, bridge is for fun!