Ethical Dilemma

[mikegill]

You hold Axx QJ KJxx KQxx, unfavorable IMPs.

 

RHO opens 2D(weak), and you bid 2NT. Partner transfers to hearts, and makes a slam try with 4D. You bid 4H since this hand kind of sucks, then partner keycards. You show your 1, along with your Q and diamond K when asked. Now partner bids 6C, which asks you about your club holding. Probably you should just bid grand here, since your J of hearts looks huge and your club holding looks good, but you are rushed for time and you just answer without really thinking. Mistakenly, you bid 6S showing just the K. As soon as you bid it, you realize you should have bid 6NT showing K and Q, and you decide you're going to bid grand over partner's signoff. But, of course, partner goes into the tank and finally emerges several minutes later with 6NT. Are you allowed ethically to raise, knowing you have a Q you denied?

[mikeh]

In my view, the answer is a clear NO.

[awm]

You can bid on and feel justified if you decided you were bidding on before partner's break in tempo. You can actually get away with this behind screens by writing screenmate a note immediately after bidding saying "I screwed up, I'm going to bid grand no matter what he does next" in a timely manner.

 

But in a face-to-face game, you simply can't provide any evidence that you didn't reconsider your call after receiving the UI that partner "has a problem." So you will normally not get a ruling, and have to pass partner's 6NT.

[cherdano]

The fact that YOU wanted to bid grand immediately after you realized your mistake doesn't matter, of course. The question is whether passing is a logical alternative.

 

I think it is not. We can count 12 tricks (1spade, 6 hearts, 2 diamonds, 3 clubs).

- Partner could have ♦Ax, in which case grand is almost certain.

- Partner could have ♣Axxx, in which case grand is almost certain.

- Partner likely has ♠K for his grand try, in which case grand is certain.

- Partner could have ♣Ax or Axx and a spade honor, in which case grand is good on a double squeeze.

 

The odds seem just hugely in favour of the grand. I think if you posted this problem without the UI, you would have gotten an almost unanimous vote in favour of bidding 7.

[hotShot]

As soon as you bid it, you realize you should have bid 6NT showing K and Q

You are allowed to change your bid, if it was as soon as you bid, and if you can prove that you did not change your mind about your bid.

 

If your methods (hope you got a CC) are 6♠ just K and 6NT KQ, then obviously you did not change your mind.

 

Now that you did not stop the auction, you have to pass.

 

By the way, if you intend to bid the grand anyway, you are allowed to change your bid any way you like, if your LHO has not bid yet. But if you do, your partner has to pass for the rest of the auction. So if you want to bid the grand anyway, stop your LHO immediately and bid the grand.

[barmar]

You are allowed to change your bid, if it was as soon as you bid, and if you can prove that you did not change your mind about your bid.

Which law allows this?

 

The relevant law is 73F1:

 

[bLOCKQUOTE]if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score[/bLOCKQUOTE]

 

This doesn't require that the UI actually caused the player to change his mind, it says the bid is not allowed if it could have been suggested by the UI. So it doesn't matter that you decided what you were going to do before partner's hesitation -- once you notice the hesitation, you must avoid choosing the action that the hesitation suggests would be better.

 

What you have to prove is that passing is not a logical alternative in the first place. This is not dependent on what you personally would have done, but what a significant number of other players would have considered.

[hotShot]

The relevant laws are 25 and 26.

 

You can find them at http://web2.acbl.org/laws/auction.htm

and scroll to law 25

Law 25

A. Immediate Correction of Inadvertency

 

    Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law.

 

B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction

 

    Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply:

[brianshark]

If you can justify that partner would have bid the grand had you shown both the K and Q, then you can bid the grand based on your mis-bid. But if you can't, then a mis-bid is no longer a defense.

 

Regarding the grand being obvious or not, the real killer blow is that you could have bid the grand before you bid 6[DP], but judged not to. And since you learned nothing new of partner's hand after your 6♠ bid, I won't blame any appeals committee for assuming that your change of mind was caused by the hesitation.

[Halo]

Partner's pass says he can't see a 13th trick. You can see one. I don't see that the hesitation suggests anything in particular. Bid seven and make your case when they call Director.

[mikegill]

Unfortuantely I didn't have the option to take back my bid, since my LHO had already bid when I realized I miscounted the steps. My inclination in these situations is always to strain to do the ethical thing, so I passed, not having the time to really figure out if I could rule out pass as a viable alternative. I also didn't want a director called since we were already very late and I didn't want to get a late penalty. Not to mention I didn't want to have to play some complicated squeeze for 7NT in 2 minutes with a director breathing down my neck. As it turns out we won 17 on the board anyway, since the other table bid 7C, down on the 4-1 break. 7NT does make on a double squeeze, partner's hand is KJx AKxxx A Axxx.