Disclosure problem

[Simplicity]

This problem occured in a teams match here in EBU land.

 

You deal and open 1♦ and LHO overcalls 3♣ at which point RHO looks pained and slowly produces the alert card. Your partner asks and RHO responds that he's unsure, but he thinks its the majors, then he thinks a little more and eventually decides in all honesty he cant remember. At this point RHO leaves the table and his partner conveys that it is natural preemptive with clubs and that 3♦ would have been the majors.

 

RHO now returns to the table and believes that he was initially correct it is the majors. Partner now doubles 3♣, you don't alert and RHO now asks what the double was.

 

What do you tell him?

[hrothgar]

I would have called the Director a long time before this.

I do so now

 

Seriously, I don't think that its appropriate for players to sort these issues out for themselves. Some jursidictions handle these types of issues by instructing a player to leave the table. However, I believe that the Director is the one who decides whether or not this happens.

 

Moreover, the Director is the one who gets to sort out the resulting UI nightmare when RHO tries to use questions about the meaning of your double to sort out his own Ghestem screw up.

[david_c]

If you don't want to tip your opponent off as to how their partner intended 3♣ (and why should you?), you can say something like, "Our agreement is that if 3♣ is natural then double is take-out, and if 3♣ shows the majors then double shows clubs."

 

Richard - I'm guessing there wasn't a TD available (except via a phone call). It's very common in England to play teams matches privately and try to sort out simple rulings as best as you can.

[MFA]

If you don't want to tip your opponent off as to how their partner intended 3♣ (and why should you?), you can say something like, "Our agreement is that if 3♣ is natural then double is take-out, and if 3♣ shows the majors then double shows clubs."

Yes, exactly. Our obligations are to declare our system, not to sort out their misunderstandings.

 

But surely, the director should be summoned as quickly as possible.

[jtfanclub]

What do you tell him?

"Negative, showing X+ hcp and the suit or suits not yet shown"

[Simplicity]

If you don't want to tip your opponent off as to how their partner intended 3♣  (and why should you?), you can say something like, "Our agreement is that if 3♣ is natural then double is take-out, and if 3♣ shows the majors then double shows clubs."

 

Richard - I'm guessing there wasn't a TD available (except via a phone call). It's very common in England to play teams matches privately and try to sort out simple rulings as best as you can.

This was exactly the case, with the TD available by phone only.

 

I disclosed our agreements exactly as david suggests but felt that

 

i) By saying "if its this its that and if its the other..." i was pretty much telling my RHO that his partner didn't have the majors, as if he'd confirmed it was the major i would simply have given its meaning.

 

ii) RHO had little business asking what the bid meant in view of the UI issues and my failure to alert

[Finch]

Technically, all you should do is tell him your agreement about the double. You didn't alert it, thus you say 'it is takeout of clubs'.

 

Now, that gives him UI. But that's his problem. He still has to be on the assumption that 3C showed the majors. You know that's what he thinks, and if he does differently you will ask for a ruling.

 

(unless oppo are very ethical, there's going to be a ruling)

 

(p.p.s. once in my life I have seen the opponents play in 4S-4 after a Ghestem misunderstanding. Every other time they have broken the laws and used UI and then been ruled against later.)

[jdonn]

If you don't want to tip your opponent off as to how their partner intended 3♣  (and why should you?), you can say something like, "Our agreement is that if 3♣ is natural then double is take-out, and if 3♣ shows the majors then double shows clubs."

 

Richard - I'm guessing there wasn't a TD available (except via a phone call). It's very common in England to play teams matches privately and try to sort out simple rulings as best as you can.

Totally disagree. You have to tell him what the double DOES mean, not what it would mean if his bid meant something other than what it does (even if that 'something' is what he thinks it actually means.)

 

I also disagree with Frances. This gives him AI about what his partner's bid means, your explanation of your partner's bid is authorized information for RHO, including if that tells him what his partner's bid meant. He simply lucks out, and the reason is, as Richard said, the director should have been summoned much sooner rather than the players trying to solve the problem themselves by one leaving the table.

[Cascade]

If you don't want to tip your opponent off as to how their partner intended 3♣  (and why should you?), you can say something like, "Our agreement is that if 3♣ is natural then double is take-out, and if 3♣ shows the majors then double shows clubs."

 

Richard - I'm guessing there wasn't a TD available (except via a phone call). It's very common in England to play teams matches privately and try to sort out simple rulings as best as you can.

Totally disagree. You have to tell him what the double DOES mean, not what it would mean if his bid meant something other than what it does (even if that 'something' is what he thinks it actually means.)

 

I also disagree with Frances. This gives him AI about what his partner's bid means, your explanation of your partner's bid is authorized information for RHO, including if that tells him what his partner's bid meant. He simply lucks out, and the reason is, as Richard said, the director should have been summoned much sooner rather than the players trying to solve the problem themselves by one leaving the table.

I think the answer to the question is AI too.

 

I am not sure what a director could have done earlier to prevent the opponent using a question in this way to find out what his partner's bid meant.

[JanM]

Interestingly, in this particular situation, I think the hands on which partner would make a negative double of 3 natural clubs and the hands on which partner would make a penalty oriented double of 3♣ showing Majors are pretty much the same. So perhaps you could solve the problem caused by the question by saying that the DBL shows values and probably length in both Majors?

But of course that wouldn't always be the situation and it really seems wrong that an opponent could find out what his partner's bid meant by asking a question about your bid over it. So it seems as if the information the opponent gets should be UI, although I have no justification for that position (my "expert" says "it's not clear.").

[glen]

In this TD-absent contest, I would lob it back at the court of the RHO, asking:

 

"do you want me to tell you what it would be in some possible cases, or do you want me to tell you what it is based on your partner's information provided to us when you were away, and then you will have UI?"

[jdonn]

I just don't get it.

"do you want me to tell you what it would be in some possible cases,

That part is illegal (to refuse to specify what your partner's bid DOES show, as opposed to what it might show)

or do you want me to tell you what it is based on your partner's information provided to us when you were away, and then you will have UI?"

And that part is incorrect (what is the UI? Your explanation of your partner's bid, which doesn't explicitly tell him what his partner's bid means but simply lets him infer it, is AI)

 

I agree this is a problem situation. Maybe it should be illegal for him to even ask anything but a conditional question (what would it mean if 3♣ was natural, etc.) but until that day, nothing but headaches and big problems will come from this sort of rough justice.

[awm]

I agree with David_C on this one.

 

Is Josh seriously making the suggestion that the following should work:

 

(1) RHO tells me 3♣ is artificial when in fact it's natural.

 

(2) Partner, behind a screen, is told that 3♣ is natural, and doubles.

 

(3) I tell RHO that partner's double shows clubs, since that is our agreement over an artificial 3♣ call.

 

(4) Later when partner turns up with majors, RHO calls the director. He says that I have not properly disclosed our agreement, which is that double shows majors (since 3♣ was natural).

 

Should director really rule in RHO's favor? I can't believe it.

 

My responsibility is just to disclose our agreement under the assumption that opponents bids mean what they say they mean, and that partner has received the same explanation that I have.

[jdonn]

Is Josh seriously making the suggestion that the following should work:

No he seriously isn't. This situation was given without screens which is totally different, since in the example you just made up my partner and I received different explanations about what 3♣ meant. As given, my partner and I both know what 3♣ actually means, neither of us is misinformed. Apples and oranges.

 

Other than apparently the fact that it seems ridiculous to you, what that I've said is wrong? Anything specific?

[brianshark]

I think you need to disclose your agreements, not what his double means based on information that you possess that he doesn't.

 

Example: If pard doubles a bid to show one of the top 2 honours in a suit, and you hold the K, you don't have to tell opps that your partner's double shows the A. You tell them that his double shows one of the top 2 honours in the suit.

[helene_t]

I think David_c's solution is right. You disclose your agreement. Anyway, why does RHO ask. He can just pass. If his p turns out to have majors he will probably bid one of them. He does have a problem if pass would show clubs while redouble would be the neutral bid, but as Richard says, he is not supposed to solve that problem by asking about the double.

[gwnn]

Josh convinced me, you have to tell them what your X shows. However, I think it's not nice behavior from your opponent at all.

[Codo]

Josh did not convince me.

As others pointed out. You have to tell them your agreements, nothing more.

But there is no law that you must tell him what his partner has.

 

Josh cannot find a § in the law which forbids you to tell the opps:

 

Our double of a real suit is take out while a double of a artifical bid suit shows that suit.

 

This is a crystalclear and complete explanation. If my opponent does not know whether 3 Club was artifical or not, then it is his problem and has nothing to do with my explanation of my agreements. I told the complete truth about my agreements.

[brianshark]

Our double of a real suit is take out while a double of a artifical bid suit shows that suit.

 

This is a crystalclear and  complete explanation. If my opponent does not know whether 3 Club was artifical or not, then it is his problem and  has nothing to do with my explanation of my agreements. I told the complete truth about my agreements.

I agree completely.

[pclayton]

I don't care for Josh's argument, although I admit I'm not familiar with cases like this.

 

Just because we choose to take an action over their misunderstanding should not give them the benefit of figuring out what they have forgotten by questioning our methods.

 

If pard passed, would RHO have the right to know what a double meant? Why not - it's part of our agreements.

 

RHO should not be able to interrogate us to ferret out what his agreements are with his partner.

 

I think a two way explanation is proper. If 3♣ is 'x', then double is 'a'. If 3♣ is 'y', then double is 'b'.

 

I think Jan's solution is the best.

[karlson]

I think part of the lesson is that 2-way explanations ("I think it's X, but he might think it's Y" are totally useless unless you're behind screens. Since the opponents are going to have different understandings of the auction depending on what they assume the bid to mean, they're going to have to pick one anyway, which means that you shouldn't get any protection on the basis of "well, i told you it might have been Y".

 

Of course in this case, lefty should also never have been able to tell us what he thinks 3c meant, the auction should just proceed with the appropriate MI penalty applied later.

 

I don't seriously think that giving a 2-way explanation of the double is going to work. Say you now bid 3h. When they ask about this, are you going to give a 2-way explanation too? And for the rest of the auction? Unless you're a very quick talker/thinker, they might be able to figure out which interpretation you're going with anyway.

 

But in general, I've made it my policy when I'm not sure about our agreement (and I have to alert) to just pick an interpretation quickly and stick with it. I have yet to hear why this is wrong.

[JanM]

From a few of the posts after mine, I see that some people would play that if 3♣ is Majors, DBL shows clubs, not a penalty-oriented hand which I had assumed. Obviously, in that case, the explanation of DBL would be different depending on the meaning of 3♣, so my solution above won't work. However:

 

My "expert" :P has now given this some more thought, and concludes that:

Once RHO has expressed doubt about the meaning of the bid and left the table, we should provide the "two way" explanation whatever LHO tells us the bid means. Therefore, our providing that explanation shouldn't tell RHO what the bid meant.

If we agree with Josh that we are supposed to tell him what the DBL means given the information we have about LHO's bid, then that explanation is UI, because it depends on information we got from one opponent, to which the other opponent is not entitled.

Our agreements are AI, but his partner's statement about the meaning of the bid is still UI.

[SoTired]

Our double of a real suit is take out while a double of a artifical bid suit shows that suit.

I salute anybody with the quick wit required to come up with that explanation when the opp asked it.

 

So it appears to win at bridge, you not only need fast, heat-of-battle bridge skills, but also fast, heat-of-battle explanation skills.

 

Seems the lawyers are really taking over the world.

[helene_t]

Of course in this case, lefty should also never have been able to tell us what he thinks 3c meant, the auction should just proceed with the appropriate MI penalty applied later.

Spot on. After lefty explained the meaning of his own call, we were left in total chaos, law-wise. We are not going to find a law that regulates what follows then.

 

Btw, if system regulations do not allow you to play psycho-suction, what you can do is to agree with p that you "maybe" play Ghestem :P

[cherdano]

But in general, I've made it my policy when I'm not sure about our agreement (and I have to alert) to just pick an interpretation quickly and stick with it. I have yet to hear why this is wrong.

Well, I am not a bridge lawyer but to me it seems to be clearly against the spirit of the laws. The laws require full disclosure of your partnership agreements, including implicit ones. If you both know that 1H (x) 2C shows diamonds but sometimes you forget then that is something you know about your partners bidding tendencies and something that you should disclose.

 

OTOH, maybe for practical purposes your solution isn't so bad. If the opponents get an either/or answer, they are always at a disadvantage (since they have to guess), and will never get redress from the TD. With your solution, they will just assume your guess, and if you guessed wrong they can just call the TD and get redeemed for damage due to your MI.