Ethics question

[Fluffy]

♠xx

♥xxx

♦Jxxx

♣K10xx

 

LHO Pa RHO ME

2♠-X-ps-2NT

ps-3NT*-

 

 

3NT* After a long though making it obvious she didn't know what 2NT was (we had no agreement)

 

At this point RHO asked me wha strenght I expected for 3NT.

 

I said around 22, making it obvious that my 2NT was lebenshol.

 

By asking me he was actually 'asking me about my own bid'

 

Is this ethic?

[blackshoe]

If you had an agreed meaning about 3NT in this particular auction, you should have explained that. You don't, so in spite of the fact that RHO asked a leading question, you should not answer the specific question, or say "I take it as..." or whatever. You should simply say "we have no agreement".

 

Is his question ethical? Well, let's ask another question: do you really think he was trying to trap you, or do you think it's possible he just didn't know any better? Before you answer consider this: do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Or ignorance.

 

:P

 

If Lebensohl is alertable, there was a failure to alert. However, you are not permitted to draw attention to that fact until the appropriate time defined in Law 75D, which isn't yet. So you can't say anything about it right now.

 

In this case, I do not think "we have no agreement" conveys UI. However, "about 22 points" does. It's unlikely to matter, unless the auction suddenly becomes competitive.

[pclayton]

What makes you think that your pard wasn't sure about 2N? Maybe she has a tweener, or maybe she was considering bidding a new suit over 2N and wondering if it was forcing?

 

Anyway, I don't think No Agreement is proper here. By bidding 2N, clearly you thought you had a Lebensohl agreement.

 

If she is a reasonably good player, she likely realizes that 2N is Lebensohl. In real life, after the last pass and before the opening lead you would make your opponents aware of her failure to alert 2N. I believe they can draw their own conclusions about your partner's hand, but it will become evident as it hits the table after the opening lead.

 

If the opponents were considering doubling 3N, and the failure to alert stopped them, then thats a different story.

[Free]

Do you have an agreement that clearly states that partner has 22hcp? No, it's a conclusion you make from the auction - lebensohl by you, partner bids. This is not something you have to tell opponents imo. So if they ask such question, you don't have to answer. If your RHO knows how much you have, he can make a logical reasoning to know how many points your p has, it's common sense. Your not obligated to tell your conclusion from the auction...

[Echognome]

I kind of view it differently than some of the others. You ask yourself the following question, "Do we have an agreement explicitly or implicitly?"

 

It is clear from your initial post that you do not have an explicit agreement. What is not so clear is whether you felt you have an implicit agreement.

 

The distinction is made largely based on what you know about your partner. For example, if I was playing with Phil or Free and we had not discussed it, I would still implicitly assume that they would understand my bid as Lebensohl. So in that case, I would say what I believe partner's 3NT showed based on that implicit assumption. I believe you can preface it by saying "We haven't discussed this sequence, but ..." And the opponents may cut you off there, so as to avoid any UI problems. (Note that UI is not illegal per se, it's taking advantage of UI that is illegal.)

 

If however, I was playing with a beginner or novice or an absolute stranger (which is obviously possible online), I would simply state "I'm sorry, we have no agreement. We have never played before (or we have not discussed this sequence before.)

 

In answer to your question, I do not find the question unethical as the opponents are entitled to your agreements. However, if the opponent in question is asking without a good reason (i.e. it doesn't matter what your agreement is, it doesn't affect his call), then I might find it unethical (but not illegal!).

[foo]

Your opponents are entitled to know your =agreements=, not your guesses, suppositions, or conclusions.

 

Telling them anything else is UI; and worse, could give your pd UI.

[helene_t]

You don't have any special agreement. You may help by saying "3N is to play" if you think that you're better positioned to infer that trivial fact from your lack of agreements than opps are.

 

Of course if 2N is natural she can have a lot less than she has if 2N is Lebehnsohl, but as you say, opps are asking you about your own bid if they want you to do the arithmetics. She can ask your p what 2N is if they want to know. Of course you still have to correct your p if she claims to have an agreement which you don't have. But if p says "no agreement", they will have to defend without knowing whether you have an invitational hand, or you are broke.

 

So no, it's not ethical. Actually I think it a pretty serious offense.

[blackshoe]

Anyway, I don't think No Agreement is proper here. By bidding 2N, clearly you thought you had a Lebensohl agreement.

One of us has misread the OP. :rolleyes:

 

As I understand it, the question, to the 2NT bidder, was about the meaning of 3NT. I don't recall seeing any version of lebensohl in which there is an agreement regarding 3NT in response to a lebensohl 2NT. Do you know of such?

[Codo]

I cannot judge if his question was ethical or just helpless. And of course you don´t need to answer it.

 

And Helenes answer is nice: 3 NT is to play. That is surely true.

 

And I don´t see why you have an implicit agreement about Lebensohl. You hoped that she will take it asLebensohl. That is not yet an agreement.

 

This is like: I hope my loved will marry me. As long as she does not confirm her interesst, we have no agreement about the wedding. I just hope to have one.

[MickyB]

Agree with Helene.

[Tola18]

Of course if 2N is natural she can have a lot less than she has if 2N is Lebehnsohl,

 

 

So no, it's not ethical. Actually I think it a pretty serious offense.

Yes. You suspect it is a misunderstanding, partner perhaps thinking your 2NT was naturally inviting.

 

If opps understand it is misunderstanding, they will prob give business-double.

 

By saying partner has 22 points you save yourself from the double...

 

Quick thinking, but not quite ethical...

 

 

The correct, like other said, is to say: undiscussed or something similiar.

[hrothgar]

What makes you think that your pard wasn't sure about 2N? Maybe she has a tweener, or maybe she was considering bidding a new suit over 2N and wondering if it was forcing?

 

Anyway, I don't think No Agreement is proper here. By bidding 2N, clearly you thought you had a Lebensohl agreement.

I disagree completely with this interpretation:

 

Players aren't supposed to quit a table any time that an auction strays on to unfamiliar territory. Rather, they are forced to make a bid and hope that partner will read things the same way. However, I can't believe that this constitutes any kind of real agreement.

 

Unfortunately, certain constructs of Bridge Law don't work very well in an environment dominated by ephemeral / inexperienced partnerships

[Echognome]

As I understand it, the question, to the 2NT bidder, was about the meaning of 3NT. I don't recall seeing any version of lebensohl in which there is an agreement regarding 3NT in response to a lebensohl 2NT. Do you know of such?

This doesn't matter. You are obliged to explain the bid and any other agrements that affect the bid (such as playing Lebensohl) whether the bid is natural or not. Suppose you open 1♥ (no alert) and you play it as natural 5+, opening values. The next opponent asks your partner what it means. Do you think that you do not have an obligation to tell them?

 

Codo - Let me ask you a question. If you do not ever assume that 2NT is Lebensohl with an expert unknown pickup partner, please define what "implicit agreement" means and give an example.

[blackshoe]

As I understand it, the question, to the 2NT bidder, was about the meaning of 3NT. I don't recall seeing any version of lebensohl in which there is an agreement regarding 3NT in response to a lebensohl 2NT. Do you know of such?

This doesn't matter. You are obliged to explain the bid and any other agrements that affect the bid (such as playing Lebensohl) whether the bid is natural or not. Suppose you open 1♥ (no alert) and you play it as natural 5+, opening values. The next opponent asks your partner what it means. Do you think that you do not have an obligation to tell them?

 

Codo - Let me ask you a question. If you do not ever assume that 2NT is Lebensohl with an expert unknown pickup partner, please define what "implicit agreement" means and give an example.

You're missing my point. I didn't say anything about "natural". In no version of Lebensohl responses to a double of a weak two am I aware of any agreement as to the meanng of this 3NT. So "no agreement" is an accurate description as far as it goes. More accurately, perhaps, "Systemically, this bid does not exist".

 

There is a further complication: 2NT is alertable, but was not alerted. This in itself is MI. Law 75D2 prohibits the 2NT bidder from "indicating in any manner" that MI is present regarding the 2NT bid. While I agree that full disclosure takes precedence, I think you have to be careful here not to violate 75D2 if at all possible.

[Codo]

The next opponent asks your partner what it means. Do you think that you do not have an obligation to tell them?

 

Codo - Let me ask you a question. If you do not ever assume that 2NT is Lebensohl with an expert unknown pickup partner, please define what "implicit agreement" means and give an example.

Hi Matt,

 

 

if I sit down opposite you or another expert, we surely had agreed Leben- Ruben- Rumpel or any other sohl. But if we forgot to discuss this, I had bet that you had understood 2 NT as Lebensohl and that you explained it to the opps accordingly. This is an implicit agreement.

ANother example: With you I had surely taken your 2 NT after opps (1 HEart) as minors, another implicit agreement.

 

But if we agree f.e. that 2 Diamond is multi, 2 Heart shows a weak two suiter with Heart, two spade spades and a minor, but we forgot to discuss 2 NT.

 

Now I have a hand with both minors and have to open. Hmm shall I try 2 NT? After all we discussed to open all other weak two suiters, so it makes much sense to play 2 NT for both minors. Okay, I try it. This is no implicit agreement, it is just a guess. (Maybe this is a bad idea or bad bridge, but thast does not change the legality)

If I sit opposite an unknown lady with limited knowledge, I may try Lebensohl or 2 NT for the minors and will learn that she has a different approach to the game. I had no agreement, just a guess. And this is what happe4nd here. Fluffy tried and learned...

[Echognome]

Well I think it's a good question and also a fine line. When is it a guess and when is it an implicit agreement?

 

I mean Gonzalo said they had no agreement, and of course I believe him. It's really up to Gonzalo to view whether he thought he had an implicit agreement. I think this is a tough area in the laws. I noticed that Gonzalo chose to be as helpful as he could, but is asking if that was right. I guess my answer comes down to, did you reasonably believe your partner would interpret 2NT the correct way? If you did, then wouldn't you think it was an implicit agreement rather than no agreement? If you really weren't sure how they'd take it, then it was probably no agreement.

[barmar]

If however, I was playing with a beginner or novice or an absolute stranger (which is obviously possible online), I would simply state "I'm sorry, we have no agreement. We have never played before (or we have not discussed this sequence before.)

But you probably wouldn't spring a Lebensohl bid in the first place with such a partner, so the question of how you'd answer this question wouldn't arise. You're probably going to do it only with partners advanced or familiar enough that which the Lebensohl assumption seems right.

 

There's been a similar thread going on in rec.games.bridge this week. It can be difficult to discern what should be disclosed about understandings that come from implicit defaults or bids you hope partner will understand based on his expertise, rather than explicit agreements or direct partnership experience.

 

A trickier issue would be if your novice/unfamiliar partner makes the 2NT bid -- you have to guess whether they know Lebensohl and are assuming that you're expecting it.

[barmar]

I don't recall seeing any version of lebensohl in which there is an agreement regarding 3NT in response to a lebensohl 2NT. Do you know of such?

I just pulled out my copy of Ron Anderson's The Lebensohl Convention Complete. In the chapter on weak 2 bids, in the section titled "Very Strong Hands", the very first example is (2♠)-X-2NT-3NT. Doubler's hand was Ax-AKQ-AKQJx-109x.

 

Basically, this shows a hand too strong to jump straight to 3NT over the weak 2 -- you double because you want to look for slam if partner shows a decent hand by bypassing the Lebensohl 2NT. But when he bids 2NT you have to bid 3NT because you can't risk him leaving you in 3♣ -- you can see 9 tricks in your hand as long as the opponents can't take 5 ♣ tricks off the top (partner probably has 4-5 ♣, so this is a reasonable assumption).

[blackshoe]

I don't recall seeing any version of lebensohl in which there is an agreement regarding 3NT in response to a lebensohl 2NT. Do you know of such?

I just pulled out my copy of Ron Anderson's The Lebensohl Convention Complete. In the chapter on weak 2 bids, in the section titled "Very Strong Hands", the very first example is (2♠)-X-2NT-3NT. Doubler's hand was Ax-AKQ-AKQJx-109x.

 

Basically, this shows a hand too strong to jump straight to 3NT over the weak 2 -- you double because you want to look for slam if partner shows a decent hand by bypassing the Lebensohl 2NT. But when he bids 2NT you have to bid 3NT because you can't risk him leaving you in 3♣ -- you can see 9 tricks in your hand as long as the opponents can't take 5 ♣ tricks off the top (partner probably has 4-5 ♣, so this is a reasonable assumption).

Okay, fair enough.

 

Hm. Re-reading Fluffy's original post, it seems he said they had no agreement about the meaning of 2NT, not that they had no agreement about 3NT as I'd orignally thought. Athough it does follow that if you have no agreement about 2NT, you don't have one about 3NT either. My head hurts. B)

 

The proper question for opponent to have asked is, IAW Law 20, "please explain your auction". Almost noone ever does it, though. When I do it, I get blank looks, usually followed by a review, without explanations. Once, after the review, I said "no, I asked for an explanation of your auction, not a review". Opps called the TD, who asked me "which call do you want to know about?" :)

 

The proper answer to the specific question depends on why Fluffy bid 2NT - or rather on why he expected his partner to respond as to Lebensohl. If that expectation is based on partnership experience or understanding, it must be disclosed. If it's based on general bridge knowledge ( a slippery concept) it need not be.

 

Was the question unethical? I would have to say no, unless the asker intended his question to convey something to his partner - hard to believe that here. It's not proper procedure, but we're gonna have big problems if we start issuing PPs for asking specific questions, when not only does everybody do it, but they all think that's what you're supposed to do.

[cherdano]

I don't recall seeing any version of lebensohl in which there is an agreement regarding 3NT in response to a lebensohl 2NT. Do you know of such?

I just pulled out my copy of Ron Anderson's The Lebensohl Convention Complete. In the chapter on weak 2 bids, in the section titled "Very Strong Hands", the very first example is (2♠)-X-2NT-3NT. Doubler's hand was Ax-AKQ-AKQJx-109x.

 

Basically, this shows a hand too strong to jump straight to 3NT over the weak 2 -- you double because you want to look for slam if partner shows a decent hand by bypassing the Lebensohl 2NT. But when he bids 2NT you have to bid 3NT because you can't risk him leaving you in 3♣ -- you can see 9 tricks in your hand as long as the opponents can't take 5 ♣ tricks off the top (partner probably has 4-5 ♣, so this is a reasonable assumption).

I don't think the main difference between a direct 3N and X-then-3N is that the latter is more interested in slam. The former shows a 3N bid on tricks, so partner is strongly suggested to pass, the latter shows a more flexible hand with typically more hcp, so partner is invited to correct to another game with a somewhat shapely hand.

[barmar]

Was the question unethical? I would have to say no, unless the asker intended his question to convey something to his partner - hard to believe that here. It's not proper procedure, but we're gonna have big problems if we start issuing PPs for asking specific questions, when not only does everybody do it, but they all think that's what you're supposed to do.

What's improper about it?

F. Explanation of Calls

1. During the Auction

During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request  a full explanation of the opponents' auction (questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C).

Asking what 3NT shows falls under "questions may be asked about calls actually made", I believe. Furthermore, once play commences you're only allowed to request a full review up to your first play; thereafter, you can only ask questions about specific calls.

 

BTW, I've never encountered an opponent who had a problem responding to "Please explain your auction." I'm sorry you've had such poor history in this regard.

[jtfanclub]

You don't have any special agreement. You may help by saying "3N is to play" if you think that you're better positioned to infer that trivial fact from your lack of agreements than opps are.

Except that it's not to play, if you both agree that it's Lebensohl, since the 2NT bidder could have been planning to continue over 3♣ (and I don't mean 3♦).

 

I usually answer "we have no specific agreement, I can tell you systems and generic agreements if you like". Most opponents would rather that I not guess.

[blackshoe]

What's improper about it?

My understanding of proper procedure under law 20 is that you should ask for an explanation of the entire auction, and then if you still need further information about specific calls, ask for it. The idea is to minimize the possibility of UI to partner.

 

I'm pretty sure that the format of Law 20 predates alerts. When those were added, the regulations typically made it permissible to ask an immediate question about an alerted call, without going through asking about the whole auction. I suppose it seemed reasonable that everyone at the table would figure, if there was an alert followed by "please explain your auction", that it's the alerted call the asker is really asking about. So when there is an alert, the procedure in my first paragraph need not be followed. That doesn't mean one shouldn't still follow the procedure when there hasn't been an alert.

 

After your first turn to play you're not allowed to ask for a review of the auction, true. But an explanation of the auction is not a review, and Law 20F2, which does govern explanations, says

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request  an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions.

So "thereafter you can only ask questions about specific calls" turns out not to be the case. The rationale behind allowing declarer to ask questions about specific calls is, I believe, that there can be no UI for his side in the play. The defenders are another story, which is why they're still supposed to ask about the whole auction.

[skjaeran]

What's improper about it?

After your first turn to play you're not allowed to ask for a review of the auction, true. But an explanation of the auction is not a review, and Law 20F2, which does govern explanations, says

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request  an explanation of opposing auction. At his or dummy's turn to play, the declarer may request an explanation of a defender's call or card play conventions.

So "thereafter you can only ask questions about specific calls" turns out not to be the case. The rationale behind allowing declarer to ask questions about specific calls is, I believe, that there can be no UI for his side in the play. The defenders are another story, which is why they're still supposed to ask about the whole auction.

You've got no right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten though. To get an explanation during the play period, you need to go stepwise through the auction.

 

See also Law 41C - you're entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

[blackshoe]

You've got no right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten though. To get an explanation during the play period, you need to go stepwise through the auction.

 

See also Law 41C - you're entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled.

You not only have a right to an explanation of an auction you might have forgotten, you are, if a defender, required to request one over asking about a specific bid. Read the law I quoted again.

 

You do not need to go stepwise through the auction to explain it.

 

"Declarer has shown six or more spades, some 16-18 points, and first round control of clubs. Dummy showed..." well, you could say what dummy showed, but since dummy is sitting there where everybody can see it, I don't see the point, at least as long as he has what he showed. If Declarer bid Blackwood after a cue bid from partner, a comment to the effect that he (declarer) might have been concerned about a lack of controls in that suit (because he didn't bid BW earlier) might be appropriate. Or not. I should think that would be general bridge knowledge.

 

I am aware of Law 41C. And of Law 41B, which says in part that both defenders and declarer retain the right to request explanations throughout the play period, each at his own turn to play. The procedure for such requests is as defined in Law 20F2, which says that defenders should ask for an explanation of the auction.