Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Cerif
I don't know if that is a good definition of "willfully ignorant," but I've heard the term batted around a bit lately, and have been wondering if it really exists at all, or if there is a difference between willfully ignorant and just regular old ignorant.
Let say your in smallish friendly Bridge tournament where people do not as a rule bother the director much.
Your deep into defending a Bridge hand.
You need partner to have the settling trick in hearts or diamonds, however you don't know which. If you guess wrong declare will clear up the rest of the tricks.
Your partner started with 4 hearts and five diamonds. So there is arguable a slightly better chance you he has a big diamond. However you have a hunch he has the winning heart, what do you do?
The ethical approach would be to consider the situation more deeply, realise your feeling is due to the way partner hesitated when hearts were lead earlier in the hand. Now you can't take advantage of illegal information from partner, so you resignedly lead a diamond.
The cheating approach would be to consider the situation more deeply, realise your feeling is due to the way partner hesitated when hearts were lead earlier in the hand. Now knowing what is happening you can lead the heart with confidence.
The wilful ignorance approach is to quickly lead a heart and not think too deeply about it, in case you realise something you would rather not know. However you have been here many times before, so you could have a pretty good guess as to what is going on.