Ethics? Bridge?

[Guest Jlall]

Say the auction goes:

 

2C p 2D(waiting, doesnt promise or deny values)

2H* p 3D

 

2H was kokish, showing either hearts or (24)25+ balanced, and forces partner to bid 2S. What is 3D? What if kokish is the most recent addition to your convention card, partner is a student, and you explicitly told her when teaching her the convention that she can only bid 2S (in response to her question if 3C over 2H is a double negative)? Obviously partner did not alert 2H, so you have some UI. Are you supposed to play partner for something specific, or can you assume a screw up at this point because she made an impossible bid?

 

For a bonus, your hand is KQ98 AK AKQJx AK.

 

Anyways, I figured I had a 4N bid regardless of what 3D should mean. Partner bid 5D showing 1 keycard over that. Now the tricky part; you are playing MP.

 

Did you think that breaking kokish should promise 8 small or w/e, or do you think you can legitimately claim the auction indicated that there had been a screw up?

 

Also, when thinking about whether or not to bid 7N, can you think about the fact that it is impossible that partner cannot have Qxx of hearts, or is that barred? Is partner not being able to have Qxx of hearts because of UI relevant enough to force you to bid 7N?

 

Finally, what do you think the right bridge bid is if you don't feel ethically obligated to bid 7N?

[jdonn]

wth you don't have to assume partner has 8 small! obv partner forgot. that makes everything else moot to me.

[Guest Jlall]

wth you don't have to assume partner has 8 small! obv partner forgot. that makes everything else moot to me.

except for my last question? :D

[hotShot]

The ethical behavior from your side is to assume that your partner had alerted the 2♥ bid, and intentionally bid 3♦.

 

I guess you have a CC to prove you play kokish, so there is no agreement what this bid means. I don't know your general approach but I can think of 2 possible meanings for 3♦.

 

1) long ♦ suit and a hand (much) stronger than 2nd neg. no interest to play ♥ (single or void).

 

2) forgot the convention (AI).

 

4NT is a great bid and 1 keycard is perfect.

I think your bid now is 7♦. Partner seems short in ♥ and you need to ruff your 4th ♠ at dummy, so 7NT won't make. Partner knows that all keycards are there when you bid 7♦ and that you need a ruff because you did not bid 7NT. So she has a chance to correct to 7NT holding ♥Q or ♣Qxx and ♠Jxxx.

[rogerclee]

I think your bid now is 7♦. Partner seems short in ♥ and you need to ruff your 4th ♠ at dummy, so 7NT won't make.

lol

[Finch]

IF you have had the discussion along the lines of "you explicitly told her when teaching her the convention that she can only bid 2S " then you know she has forgotten, whatever UI you also have.

 

Looking at my hand I've still got no idea what she's actually got, as long diamonds seems a bit improbable.

 

Anyway at matchpoints I'll just bid 7NT. No-one else in the room knows how to bid 29-counts either so it'll be a popular spot. Also opponents know absolutely nothing about my hand, so they'll have fun following to five rounds of diamonds anyway.

[han]

If partner had alerted 2H as Kokish and then bid 3D, what would you think? With this partner you'd think that something really really strange was going on. If you were playing with screens and you'd see the 3D call then you'd definitely assume that partner forgot. So I think that 3D is enough of a wake-up call that you may assume that partner forgot Kokish.

 

I agree with Frances that I would still bid 7NT, especially at MPs. Maybe partner has 6 diamonds, maybe partner has a rounded queen or the spade jack, or maybe the opponents misdefend.

[nige1]

IMO You should bid as if partner alerted 2♥; correctly explained your version of Kokish; and deliberately persisted with an anti-systemic 3♦ bid: hence, the ethical bid is 7N. That is the correct Bridge bid, anyway. I hope that virtue and common sense were rewarded :(

[gnasher]

IF you have had the discussion along the lines of "you explicitly told her when teaching her the convention that she can only bid 2S " then you know she has forgotten, whatever UI you also have.

That's certainly correct from a legal point of view. As a practical matter, however, you also have to consider whether you will be able to persuade the opponents, director or appeals committee that this agreement existed and that it was as definite as this. If you don't think you will be able to, you may as well behave as though constrained by the UI, so as to avoid being stuck with whatever they decide is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable.

 

I wouldn't expect to have any difficulty with this in England - if both members of the partnership stated that this discussion had taken place, I imagine they'd usually be believed. Would the same be true in the ACBL? This is the sort of statement which one sometimes sees dismissed as "self-serving" in appeal writeups.

[ArtK78]

I don't see what you would have to explain.

 

If partner is bidding according to our agreement, then 7NT is clear.

 

If partner is not bidding according to our agreement, then it is likely that partner has 6 diamonds along with the ♠A, and, again, 7NT is clear.

 

So, I am not bidding on UI. Whether partner has remembered our agreement or not, I am going to make 13 tricks in no trump.

 

If partner only has 5 diamonds (unlikely even if partner has forgotten our agreement) then perhaps there is a 13th trick there somewhere. Partner is allowed to have the ♠J or the ♣Q or the ♥Q or the spades could run or there could be a squeeze.

[xcurt]

...

 

I am going to make 13 tricks in no trump.

 

If partner only has 5 diamonds (unlikely even if partner has forgotten our agreement) then perhaps there is a 13th trick there somewhere. Partner is allowed to have the ♠J or the ♣Q or the ♥Q or the spades could run or there could be a squeeze.

Note we hold KQ98 AK AKQJx AK.

 

It's a good thing we have the S98, otherwise a spade lead would cause us a problem if partner has, say Axx, Jxx, xxxx, Jxx. We need the extended menace in spades so we can keep both rounded jacks against the opponent who has the long spades, since we don't know which queen he has.

 

If partner has SAx, we're in trouble unless she has 5 diamonds and we can win the last one in dummy. Good thing I don't have 150 honors.

[Apollo81]

When partner makes a bid that's impossible according to agreements it self-alerts as "I forgot our agreements" or "I have something other than what my previous bids showed"

[Apollo81]

If partner had alerted 2H as Kokish and then bid 3D, what would you think?

 

Regardless of what it was explained as, if p makes an impossible bid then that self-alerts as "I forgot the convention" or "I have something other than what my previous bids showed"

[NickRW]

do you think you can legitimately claim the auction indicated that there had been a screw up?

 

Yes.

 

Finally, what do you think the right bridge bid is if you don't feel ethically obligated to bid 7N?

 

I take a pot at 7N anyway at MPs. Too many chances to be right to do otherwise.

 

Nick

[jtfanclub]

IMO You should bid as if partner alerted 2♥; correctly explained your version of Kokish; and deliberately persisted with an anti-systemic 3♦ bid:

I disagree. I think you should bid as if partner alerted 2♥ and the opponents didn't ask. At that point, there's no irregularity, and who knows partner might have forgotten.

[ArtK78]

...

 

I am going to make 13 tricks in no trump.

 

If partner only has 5 diamonds (unlikely even if partner has forgotten our agreement) then perhaps there is a 13th trick there somewhere.  Partner is allowed to have the ♠J or the ♣Q or the ♥Q or the spades could run or there could be a squeeze.

Note we hold KQ98 AK AKQJx AK.

 

It's a good thing we have the S98, otherwise a spade lead would cause us a problem if partner has, say Axx, Jxx, xxxx, Jxx. We need the extended menace in spades so we can keep both rounded jacks against the opponent who has the long spades, since we don't know which queen he has.

 

If partner has SAx, we're in trouble unless she has 5 diamonds and we can win the last one in dummy. Good thing I don't have 150 honors.

 

The hand that you give for partner is absolutely impossible.

 

If partner remembered our agreement, then the 3♦ bid must show long diamonds.

 

If partner forgot our agreement, then with 3343 partner would surely have raised hearts. Partner certainly would not have introduced xxxx of diamonds under any circumstances.

 

IMO You should bid as if partner alerted 2♥; correctly explained your version of Kokish; and deliberately persisted with an anti-systemic 3♦ bid:

I disagree. I think you should bid as if partner alerted 2♥ and the opponents didn't ask. At that point, there's no irregularity, and who knows partner might have forgotten.

 

Whether partner alerts 2♥ or not, and whether the opponents ask about the meaning of 2♥ or not, you are obliged to bid as if partner has made the correct bid according to your system. Even if you think the bid is impossible, you are not entitled to assume that partner forgot your system due to a failure to alert.

 

In my opinion, the 3♦ bid is NOT impossible - it is an override of the systemic relay, and must show long diamonds. Partner has chosen to describe his/her hand rather than let you describe your hand.

[MFA]

When partner has gone out of her way to bid diamonds, we cannot assume 5 small, so the ethics bid is 7NT now.

If we were entitled to know that partner had forgot Kokish, which is doubtful, then bidding 7NT is a bit less obvious but must still clearly be with odds.

 

edited.

[Guest Jlall]

OK, I bid 7N becuase I figured maybe I am ethically obligated to, and maybe its the right bid anyways (lol).

 

I especially agree with Frances's comment that 7N will often make on a pseudo squeeze/them giving away the spade position since they know nothing about my hand. In fact partner had ATx of spades and I was able to pick up spades for that reason.

[xcurt]

The hand that you give for partner is absolutely impossible.

Who knows what's going on in partner's mind. Maybe she thought we bid 2NT or showed a balanced hand of some kind, and was transferring. OK give her Ax, Jxxxx, xx, Jxx.

 

I'm merely pointing out that looking at our cards and knowing partner has the SA, assuming that a squeeze will develop is optimistic.

 

I think trying to sort out our ethical obligations here on a logical basis is simply too hard. We know that we have 12 tricks for sure. In any competent field, no contract lower than 6NT makes any sense at this point. So a shot at 7NT isn't unreasonable. It's just not necessarily cold.

 

Edit -- by "trying to sort out our ethical obligations here on a logical basis is simply too hard" I am referring to this forum, knowing nothing of partner or the partnership. I do think the strong hand has UI, I just think it's hard to know exactly what the UI is or which LA's it demonstrably suggests.

[Cascade]

IF you have had the discussion along the lines of "you explicitly told her when teaching her the convention that she can only bid 2S " then you know she has forgotten, whatever UI you also have.

I think the logic here is flawed.

 

Partners sometimes remember but do something else anyway.

[JoAnneM]

Your comment that you knew partner didn't alert your 2H makes it clear that this was ftf bridge. Some of the posters seem to think this is an online situation. This makes a big difference.

 

All I know is that you are not allowed to do anything to "wake your partner up" so I think your 4NT was the best solution.

[jtfanclub]

Your comment that you knew partner didn't alert your 2H makes it clear that this was ftf bridge. Some of the posters seem to think this is an online situation. This makes a big difference.

 

All I know is that you are not allowed to do anything to "wake your partner up" so I think your 4NT was the best solution.

I think that if you wake your partner up with a 7NT bid, most people will be OK with that. :rolleyes: